On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:20:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Please formulate a GR and I'll second it immediately. 18-24 months seems > > sensible, annual elections are a waste of everyone's time. > I know, we should set the DPL term to be equal to the release cycle; that > way the DPL will be suitably encouraged to make sure the release never > stalls out ;)
Or be encouraged to ensure it always stalls out -- malevolent dictator
for life!
But at least the DPL candidates for the next term would be so encouraged,
and there's more of them, so maybe it'd work out anyway!
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
That seems to work better elsewhere than in Debian; it might be to do
with electing a group rather than an individual, or it could be more
specific to Debian -- we at least tend to spend more time and effort on
the campaigning part than other groups do, from what I've seen, so that
might make a difference.
Having it be one year or two wouldn't have changed whether I'd run or
not. It might've let me spend two months on each thing rather than one
month, which might've been more effective; but I don't think it would've
changed the way dunc-tank or the release went. I imagine I'd've been more
comfortable continuing as DPL after the recall stuff had I been re-elected
this year, than if it'd just been a two-year term, but I don't know.
I think it's worth noting that the DPL terms so far have been routinely
short:
Ian Murdock: 2 years, 7 months
Bruce Perens: 1 year, 8 months
Ian Jackson: 1 year
Wichert Akkerman: 2 years, 2 months
Ben Collins: 1 year
Bdale Garbee: 1 year
Martin Michlmayr: 2 years
Branden Robinson: 1 year
Anthony Towns: 1 year
Sam Hocevar: 3 months and counting
Huh, going by the repeating 2-1-1 pattern, Sam's due for a two year stint.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
