It sometimes pays to build a ship before you decide on the captain to steer it.
Building that ship is the job National Party members will start to consider from today, as they meet for regional conferences to decide on a number of recommendations out of a review of the party's abysmal election, and a parallel review on the party's constitution.
One of the most contentious recommendations could end up being the one around how to choose that captain.
The big immediate question is not who should be the next leader but how they should be chosen.
The review recommends changes to give the board more involvement in selecting new leaders, and setting the rules for those changes rather than leaving it to the MPs in caucus to decide. It does not specifically state that the board should have a vote on the leadership, nor does it rule it out.
It is one of a few changes one MP described as "a power grab by the board".
Until now, caucus has firmly been lord and master of its own destiny when it comes to leadership.
It has always been caucus that elected a leader, although the board has to approve that choice.
The basic reason for that is that the MPs know each other the best. Those opposed to the change will point to the results of Labour's leadership selections since it broadened its leadership contests to give the membership a vote.
In the cases of David Cunliffe and Andrew Little, the votes of members or unions overrode the majority choice of caucus. In 2017, Jacinda Ardern was chosen by caucus, not the members.
Care should be taken to ensure there is no overreaction to National's recent leadership woes.
If a process has by and large selected the best person for the job over decades, the members should perhaps pause before they consider whether to change it because a couple of calls went awry.
There are risks in involving the board more in that decision. It risks turning the board into a political forum as leadership wannabes try to stack it with directors they know will back them.
It also raises a greater risk of tensions between the board and a leader, and board and caucus – especially if the leader favoured by the board does not prevail.
Over National's history, leadership changes have either been by a short, sharp coup, or after the resignation of a leader. The latter is more likely to result in a race contested by more than one person.
Although there is a clear process for the caucus vote there is no set process for the lead-up to that vote.
The rules of engagement and campaigning are decided by the caucus at the given time: and is one area that could be tidied up.
Given only MPs vote on National's, public campaigning by the contenders – such as in 2018 when Simon Bridges prevailed - has very little real purpose other than entertainment.
In that contest, there were several contenders and confusion about what the rules of engagement were. Amy Adams turned up with supporters flanking her. Judith Collins cried foul, claiming caucus had decided other MPs would not publicly state their preferences.
All that could be said of it was that it was tidier than Labour's leadership contests, which at times have bordered on the reality TV show Survivor.
One of Labour's involved four contestants in a challenge: each was tasked with asking the then PM John Key a question in Parliament. Key, predictably, had a field day, as did the media.
Labour did not repeat that particular exercise, restricting future contests to road-trips to talk to members.
Beyond that, National party members are being asked to wrestle with the question of diversity and Maori representation.
The issue pops up in recommendations about board membership and candidate selections.
In practice, National has used its list to try to ensure diversity, especially of Asian, Maori and Pacific candidates, but it has long been opposed to formalising anything that looks remotely like a "quota".
Whether Collins's criticisms of the Government's proposal to set up a Maori health authority as separatist and "segregation" will have an impact on those deliberations remains to be seen.
On that note, there is one little twist in the National Party review. It recommends including a reference to either Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the Treaty of Waitangi (yes, there is a difference) in its constitution again.
It notes that the last time the Treaty was in its Constitution was 2002, when it acknowledged the Treaty as New Zealand's founding document.
That was removed after the last big review of National's constitution and rules, following its disastrous 2002 election result. It also coincided with National halting standing in the Maori seats and Bill English and then Don Brash delivering "one law for all" speeches: similar to Collins's arguments now.
None of those involved at the time can recall the reason for the removal - but the general consensus was that it was mere oversight, as National whittled down four pages of "visions and values" to a few simple statements.
If National is genuine about standing in the Maori seats again, it could start with restoring that.