On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:14:42PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> >I personally don't plan to have neither a DPL board, nor a 2IC.
> why not?
First of all because I don't think it is needed, then because we lack
evidence that having either a DPL board or a 2IC actually improves the
outcome of a DPL term or even only the communication with the project.
In fact, if you think about it, the proposal of a DPL board / 2IC just
gives a formal status to something that should be normal,
i.e. interaction among DPL and people knowledgeable/competent on
specific topics/tasks. In all my Debian activities thus far, I've always
talked with people, asked for advice, etc. If elected, I'll surely
continue to do so. There is no need to formalize that in a extra
structure that, especially for the DPL board, will induce extra
coordination hops.
For formal delegation of specific tasks, our constitution already
entails the notion of delegates, which I will use when and if needed. I
think we could use a bit more of that, possibly adding time constraints
to delegations, to avoid that a specific power lingers around attached
to people once their interest in a specific task has faded out, or the
task is completed (but no, I don't have any specific new delegation in
mind ATM).
The advantage of delegations over a DPL board / 2IC is that they are
task-specific and then more fair to the project: as a DD, I can trust
someone to work on a specific task, especially when that someone has
already shown competence in it, but not on a different one.
FWIW, I've discussed a bit more about all this in my platform, which is
pending publication.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature