On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 06:49:51PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> So, since part of the reason that I joined the race was to make sure it
> wouldn't get too boring, I was hoping there'd be a bit more life on this
> list. Since there isn't, allow me to ask a few questions myself.
FWIW, I disagree with that or, better, I think "too boring" is a
subjective notion. I've been indexing DPL campaigning questions this and
last year, and we're currently at about 20 discussion topics, with 1
more week of campaigning ahead of us. Last year campaigning has been
*way* more quiet :-)
> (The alert reader will notice that some of the points in this mail have
> not been mentioned in my rebuttals. This is because these are
> *questions*, not statements of what I believe is wrong; the latter
> belong in rebuttals, the former do not)
Oh, thanks, I've discovered from this that your rebuttals have been
published already on www.d.o. Mine are still not (the fault is all mine
though: I've sent them to the secretary after the suggested deadline),
but are available since yesterday on my homepage
http://upsilon.cc/~zack/hacking/debian/dpl-2010/platform.html#sec:rebuttals
... and while we are on rebuttals, let me comment a specific point of
your rebuttals to my platform: the one about the website. Reading your
rebuttals, it seems that I intend to favor external over internal
contributions to the website. This is not the case, as it is made clear
by the usage of the expression "emergency plan".
Now, since fair is fair, I'm looking forward for your comments to my
rebuttals about your platform :-)
> Stefano:
>
> You make a point of transparency and availability in your platform. As
> you yourself note, many past DPLs and DPL candidates have made similar
> promises/points, yet few have managed to actually be able to do so.
>
> You mention that you will attempt to succeed where others have failed by
> providing a "feed of DPL activity news". While the specifics of your
> plan may be innovative, the idea itself of constantly providing updates
> rather than bulk ones has been promised by others in the past (e.g.,
> Steve mentioned it in his 2008 platform). As such, I'm not convinced
> this will help all that much;
>
> How do you believe it will, and how do you think you are different from
> other DPLs who have tried and failed to be more communicative?
There are various issue which I presume block sending frequently,
according to a given period, "bits from the DPL" mail to the project.
I believe a significant one among such issues is the "expectation" that
the DPL knows DDs have on the monthly bits, and therefore the perceived
weight of of preparing those bits. My guess is that, on these premises,
actually sending out the DPL bits mail is a time consuming and
potentially stressing matter. I believe that, by diluting it with the
feed idea, it will become way more bearable.
In fact, there is also a personal reason: I know that a feed like that
would fit quite well my usual way of working, since I like taking notes
of what I did in a work day, for future reference / not forgetting.
Given that the DPL is an elective body I believe it is just fair to have
such a flow of information public.
Mind you, I cannot guarantee the feeds will not be empty, real life can
strike back on me as it can with any of us. Nevertheless I want to try
establishing an important correlation: no bits ~= no work being done by
the DPL (and hence the right to inquire, complain, etc.).
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