Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the
> > reasons outlined by Jeff in:
> > http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July/msg00030.html
> I'll summarize those as "if people want continuity in people on (the
> board/the DPL position/whatever), they can re-elect them".
> I don't think it works that way. Given an apparently non-active
> incumbent and a much-promising challenger, people are more likely to
> vote for the much-promising challenger (provided this challenger is
> promising what the electorate wants, of course).
Part of this really comes down to communication, though. It's often
only at election time that we start to get an inkling of the
constraints which have been placed on the end-of-term DPL and what
needs to be done to actually realize the goals initially promised.
Not communicating successfully what is happening as the DPL (and often
more importantly, what is blocking and/or stoping things from
happening) is one of the reasons why incumbant DPLs have a hard time
I've no real problem with failing to re-elect in these cases.
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot
possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to
get at or repair.
-- Douglas Adams _Mostly Harmless_