* Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [2006-03-10 13:41:29]: > > The GR was intendet to clarify that point. > > However, in a small oppinion poll I found that this apparently > > was already clear to everyone in the project. A GR would not have > > added much value but instead created unnecessary unrest and work > > No, that doesn't make sense. Phrasing it like that makes it sound like > the GR was intended to have no effect, but at the time you were willing > to discuss the fact that it may be necessary to replace the existing > ftp-masters and security team. In fact, you'd already planned for that. Me being a good organizer made it easy to for me to look ahead and look at different outcomes and plan for the different scenarios, in order to limit disruption and damage to the project to a minimum. let me quote myself: "At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a variety of less drastical ones." > > At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams > > was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to > > avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a > > variety of less drastical ones. > > No. Making somebody a constitutional delegate does precisely one thing - > it gives the DPL the power to fire someone. The great majority of people I talked with considered the core teams delegates already. I would not think that delegates in Debian need to live with the fear of being fired. It never happend before. Leaders are happy if there are people who do the work. The idea of delegating to someone in order to fire him is novel in itself and was certainly not on our mind. I would like to know if anyone else besides you ever got that idea. > > I told you that we were trying to mediate, encourage > > reconciliation, deescalate by getting different people to talk to > > them, change the social setting to give them incentive to change, > > etc. > > You told me that you thought that that process had failed: > > 23:54 <stockholm> then he can find people who are able and willing to > work together and delegate to them, if all else fails. > 23:54 <stockholm> so far, pretty much all has failed. > > Why do you now believe otherwise? Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for the security team, why do you think it should be impossible for the other core teams? To be a leader reqires to have hope for the future. I still have that and I will pursue those possible scenarios that I belive hold most promise, trying to staying clear of the destructive ones. > At that time, the DPL made two (unreported) formal delegations to the > security team. That didn't work. Why do you think they'd be any more > likely to respond to you in your role as DPL? Change is possibel. There is hope. See above. Besides: The goal is not to delegate people forcibly into teams, it always has been to stimulate jammed teams to reform themselfs. > Do you really think that it would have been wrong for people to consider > the following as a threat? you quote the very first draft of a GR that never came to past. There was a second one and you yourself said it was much better. Why do you paste here the first draft that I right away admitted to have flaws? Why do you try to manipulate your fellow DDs in such a way and did not even mention the second version you liked? > Let's be entirely clear here. You wanted to propose a GR that threatened > the existing ftp-masters, DSA and security team with being fired. You > didn't think that discussing this with the affected people in advance > was a good idea because they might have felt "threatened" because they > are "overly touchy". Actually I have an irc log here where an FTP master admits to be overly sensitive as soon as it comes to his office. Therefor I tried to avoid a ruckus for their sake. If it is impossible to address certain topics or even covers up questionably behaviour for others it is likely that one is caught in a state of codependency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency Some people in Debian suffer from this already. The DPL must not do that or he is unable to lead the project unimpared and is unable to say or do some things that are unavoidable to help the project overcome some of it's problems. > Do you think that describing the security team, DSA and ftp-masters as > "overly touchy" brings harmony to Debian? You seem a tad codependent.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature