🚀 go-pugleaf

In <pjw.706535063@lobo> pjw@lobo.canberra.edu.au (Peter Wishart) writes:

| I'm inclined to agree.  One year is too little time to achieve anything.

This is almost certainly true.

| A better scenario would be to only change half the committee every year.
| So people have two year terms but they are staggered.

But this isn't the solution - the committee doesn't "change" every year,
it stands for re-election, assuming the members want to (if they don't
nothing is going to keep them for even that long).  If the committee
are doing a reasonable job, and want to be re-elected, chances are that
at least most of them will be - there will be plenty of time to get
familiar with the job.

But if they're not doing a good job (in the opinion of the members)
having to wait 2 years to get rid of the dead wood is just too long.

There's no need to change anything here, its not as if the AUUG members
periodically purge the entire committee and start with an entirely new one,
in fact, I suspect that there's been some pretty good continuity,
committee members more often retire than are disenfranchised.  I can't
recollect a case where one of the office bearers failed in a bid to be
re-elected.

kre