Re: [all candidates] DPL term duration
On 2013-03-12 20:35, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
In the past, when I was a new DD, there was this strange
and sad tendency that after finishing their DPL term, DPLs tended to
leave the project (or strongly reduce their involvement) — I *think*
there is some correlation with the DPL task pickup burnout time,
can be an important portion of the term.
While this burnout has been most visible in DPLs, we have seen the same
pattern in other Debian roles. I would relate this to the more general
point I have been making, that we should aim for people to rotate into
new roles earlier (not later, as you are suggesting here ;). It's a
waste if we leave people in roles until they burn out then leave the
project, rather than guiding them earlier into new roles where we can
transfer their experience to other areas.
In the specific case of the DPL role, I would rather that someone
stayed around the project a long time as an occasional advisor than that
we pushed them to take an extra year as DPL then saw them burn out and
We have seen some discussions in the past regarding whether the term
should be lengthened to two years, with a mid-term referendum (or
chance to politely step down) rather than full election procedure.
would you feel about it?
I can certainly see a potential benefit for the project from spending
less time on elections (currently > 10% of each year is the election
period). And a two-year term would allow people to work on some of
their plans on a more relaxed timetable.
However, the DPL role for a single year is already a big commitment,
taking a lot of energy and time (typically including a lot of the time
that person previously spent in other areas of Debian). Already many
people who would perform the role well choose not to run due to the
required commitment. While you suggest that the second year would be
separate and optional, I can see it becoming a point of pride in the
election period to say that you plan to perform the full two years,
discouraging those who don't feel so confident about asserting this.
Equally, losing a referendum could be more stressful for an incumbent
DPL who wants to continue than being beaten by another candidate -- and
if they failed the referendum we'd presumably need a full vote, but
would face an interim period with either no DPL or one who knows that
they lack formal support.
In my view, if we want to lengthen the term of office for our
leadership roles, which could have beneficial aspects, we should do that
as part of a wider reform that reduces the concentration of roles/power
in a single person.