I think that the history of Orthodox liturgical reform and development is interesting.
Before the evil days of 1204, there existed two liturgical uses in the Orthodox Church -- the Cathedral and the Monastic. Over the previous centuries of the first millenium, very gradually the Constantinopolitan Cathedral rite, which itself evolved and changed gradually over time -- you can call that organic, I guess -- became enforced throughout the other Eastern Sees, Sees that originally had different liturgical rites. Much of this had to do with the legacy of various schisms in the Eastern Sees during the First Millenium, and the resultant increasingly "Greek Orthodox" nature of the Eastern Mediterranean Orthodox Church over these centuries.
Following the sack of 1204 and the ensuing occupation, the rite used in Constantinople was changed -- this time not organically, but very much by design, to incorporate many elements in use in the Monastery of St. Sabbas in Palestine. The overall result was a hybrid of the monastical and cathedral rites and, really for the first time, the use in local churches became much more monastic in character. In a very real sense, this was a triumph of the monks in Orthodoxy. Because this revised Typikon became normative in Constantinople, it also became normative elsewhere over time due to the fact that the remainder of Eastern Mediterranean Orthodoxy followed the Constantinopolitan Typikon. There have been some minor changes over the centuries, but generally the "Greek" churches still follow a very similar typikon to that adopted in Constantinople after the sack of 1204. The Russians generally follow the Nikonian reform -- another inorganic reform -- which is very similar to the revised Constantinopolitan Typikon, with a few cosmetic differences.
But other than this, there hasn't been very much serious liturgical reform in the Orthodox Church for centuries. It is sort of a holy grail for us -- we are, I think, afraid to do it because of the central inmportance of the liturgy to us, on the one hand, and the "mixed" experience that the Latin Church has had in its own liturgical reform in the 20th Century. We're generally pretty skeptical about top-down reforms (never mind that our existing liturgy is more or less the product of such a reform), but we're also rather skeptical of liturgical experimentation by individual churches and dioceses that could lead to liturgical reform .. in short, we don't want a top-driven reform and we don't want what would be an "organic" reform, either. Many of us don't want any reform of any kind in this area, and believe that the liturgical rites are just fine as they are.
Are they? That's an interesting question. I doubt you could get five Orthodox to agree on that. My personal opinion: the DL could use some editing in parts relating to the duplicative litanies, but I think that the DL basically works as a liturgical service. As for the rest, noone except the true diehards serves the rest without abridging and adapting, and so I think it's an open secret that at least the official forms of our horologion don't work very well -- at least so it seems to me.