Re: [all candidates] DPL term duration
Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> writes:
> One of the difficulties I perceive we have seen over the years is the
> time it takes to transfer the know-how and work rhythm from an
> outgoing DPL to an incoming one. Several of our DPLs have repeated
> their term. 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, which
> can be an important portion of the term.
Indeed, but the solution to that is not increasing the term duration, as
that will not make it neither easier, nor faster to pick up after a
transition. It merely means longer commitment, which one may or may not
be ready to make.
> 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. How
> would you feel about it?
I'm not particularly supportive of the idea, even though I fully intend
to serve multiple terms.
> Would you prefer the term to be stated as a longer "journey", or is
> one year the right duration? Would you be interested in pushing for
> this change?
I believe we need a smoother transition, but a longer term does not help
that in any way, as far as I see. Therefore, I wouldn't support such a
change. Nevertheless, if pushed through and accepted, I would hold my
bid committing to two years of service.
Another reason I'm not too fond of extending the term is that 'politely
stepping down' and 'not running again' sends a much different
message. None of our DPLs were in office more than three years either,
and a number of them only served a single term too. I do not see why
then an increase two two years would be justified.
What would help, on the other hand, is making sure that a DPL transition
is much smoother. To make this easier, I'd rather propose a different
change: have the election sooner, and for the first few months, have
both former and new DPL on board. This, I think, would make it much
easier for the new DPL to pick up, and would make it easier for the old
one too, because she/he would know who to train in the art of being DPL
"ahead of time".
One of Zack's purpose with the DPL Helper initiative was to train future
DPLs (see his platform from last year). That did work to some extent, as
all three of us running this year took part in some way. Taking that
idea further, the best way to train the next DPL is, in my opinion, to
work together. While a helpers initiative is a step in the good
direction and certainly useful in its own right too, nothing guarantees
that people participating will run for DPL, that they won't be scared
away. Serving together forms a closer bond, and would also result in a
smoother transition, provided the former and new DPL are at least on
speaking terms. I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, though.
--
|8]
Reply to: