Re: Ignoring the truth or Hiding problems?
Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
> * Ingo Juergensmann
>
> | Therefore I recommend to broaden the control of who controls the universe
> | and to ensure that not the same people have the control over and over again.
> | - People in role positions should be exchanged/elected at a regular basis.
>
> Why? Why should I care who the buildd admin is? They do their work,
> usually well and I have _no way_ to know why I should elect A before B
> as the $RANDOM_ARCH (say, powerpc) buildd admin. In fact, I have no
> idea why the powerpc buildd admin is.
Do you consider buildd admin a role position? As a rule of thumb I
would say role positions are those with role addresses,
e.g. leader@debian.org.
> | - no person should hold more than 2 positions at the same time
> | - a person should only be able to hold the position for 2 times in a row at
> | maximum.
> | - whenever possible there should be a team to fulfill a position. Team
> | members should be exchanged at a regular basis.
> |
> | These ideas are not my own, but were formed when discussing the problems
> | with other DDs, who I expect to make a proper proposal for a change in
> | Debian when Sarge has been released - finally. It's more than overdue and
> | after that the problems really need to be addressed and solved.
>
> You're not a DD, unlike what your sentence «.. with other DDs»
> implies.
Irelevant and belitteling (making him second class because he is not a
DD). I guess he could have left out the 'other' but not everyone is a
native speaker or even a good writer, me included.
> Your other ideas about time-limiting positions is wrong. I am not
> able to name a single person in Debian I'd rather have as DAM than
> James. He might have much to do and be slow in his duties, but what's
> more important is the trust he has. The other people who might have
> the same level of trust usually don't want to become DAM.
And what if he dies tomorrow? Debian will be left with no DAM, no past
DAM, noone that has the vaguest idea how to handle the
job. (overstating to make a point).
Limiting the time is as much a means to prevent people hogging the
position as ensuring new people are trained and old people are
available for help.
Also the time could be limited the following way:
- A role position must be elected whenever a volunteer (not the
current holder) steps up for election but no sooner than X years after
the last.
- The current holder of a position may not run for election if he
served two consecutive terms already.
If, as you say, nobody want's to be DAM then there wouldn't be an
election by those rules.
> The limitation you're proposing would imply that for instance Bdale
> would have to stop being a porter for ia64, hppa or a member of the
> CTTE. Yeah, and Josip Rodin would have to stop being a policy editor,
> a member of the www-team, part of the mirrors group, part of the doc
> team, the bts team and the listmaster/listarchives group. And Martin
> Michlmayr being DPL, one of the people behind the partner program, NM
> front desk and key signing coordinator.
>
> All those taken from /intro/organization and intended to show that we
> have people who help out a lot while holding more than two positions
> and it works just fine.
I would not consider teams to be role positions but being a teams
leader I would.
In a team there are other people that can take up the slack if a
person is overly busy with other jobs. Also people can join the team
and do the work instead of the timeless person and defacto replace him
at any time. In a team one person does not constitue a bottleneck.
MfG
Goswin
PS: Given the inflamatory nature of mentioning DAM in such a thread
maybe a different role should be used as example in the future.
Reply to: