Martin, On 29/03/2017 07:58, Martín Ferrari wrote: > Mehdi, > > In your platform you list "Ensuring the community remains safe and fun" > as your first priority for the next term. > > I need to ask why you think in this term you will manage to do so, when > I believe you failed to do so in the last year. > I think you are being unfair here. You can read my reply to madduck's question on the same subject "safe and fun". But as a reminder of a few points: - I was able to restaff the AH team quickly and do regular pings to ensure it remains functional - I am really optimistic the AH team will be able to publish regular reports - The new DebConf Committee delegation is working properly and I do not see major issues putting DebConf or Debian's finances at risk - I have encouraged sprints, BSPs, acquisition of hardware, etc... and worked on simplifying a bit the reimbursement process. - I have automated production of DD certificates and thanks to nm.d.o's notifications, I contact every new DD to make sure they get all the attention and help they need. - I have organized multiple sessions at DebConf to make sure important subjects get some attention. And I am pretty sure I'll have new ideas to implement or suggest with time. So stating that I failed is a bit harsh, IMHO. > Some context for the rest of the readers. > > For many years, my main involvement in Debian has been helping with > DebConf. I was delegated as DebConf Chair by Lucas in August 2014, a > position I held until October 2015 when all three chairs resigned in block. > > I resigned because I could not withstand the burnout any more, the > sleepless nights, and being in anger all the time. > > For me, all that harm came mostly from one determined person, and a few > followers. Many current and former DebConf-team members agree with this > diagnosis. > > This person, and a couple others can be blamed directly for the burnout, > resignations, and vacations many valuable volunteers took during my tenure. > > > The DPL at the time knew about this, but he did nothing to improve the > situation. > > After you were elected as DPL, me and many other people spent loads of > time discussing with you the problems within DebConf: political and > personal. > In fact, this is not really true. I have tried really hard to find people ready to talk about DebConf, its issues, how to enhance it, etc... For a long period of time, I have not managed to find anyone to have that discussion. So "many people" is a bit exaggerated. I think we have had a really nice and productive discussion during Debian SunCamp. And I remember other attendees of the event that joined us (a bit later) and shared their thoughts on DebConf in general. > Later last year, a large number of long-time core DebConf organisers > asked you to find a way to remove from the team the person we all agreed > caused the most damage. > > After two months, you came up with a compromise that I found severely > insufficient. To this day, I can see that not even that compromise > solution was followed. > It was not a compromise (and still isn't). It is a first step solution. You may accept that complex situations require complex paths for resolution and take time. And this first step solution is still implemented as of today. We cannot reasonably expect anyone to resolve in a few weeks (or even months) issues of this complexity lasting for more than a couple of years. I said explicitly that a DPL is not the good person to talk to when it is about expulsion. That's DAM's territory. I can relay them the case but at some point, they will also need to talk to all involved parties in order to make a decision. And the decision is really theirs. If you want to ban someone from a mailing list, you may contact list-masters. If you want to ban someone from IRC, you may contact IRC operators. if you want to ben someone from the project, you may contact DAM. If you contact the DPL, then you're asking for some mediation. I have done a mediation and I did implement something that solves some issues in the short term. There is still a fair amount of work to do in order to fix the problem on the longer term. But, in such complex and long lasting situations, it is very important to work together. I do not expect anyone to reach any useful result while working alone on the matter. After all the energy and time I have invested on this matter, I have to admit that I found a bit rude to get a synchronized reply like "We did not expect this solution. Sorry, you failed". It was like a sentence and I did not have the right to respond. To this day, this is the first mail I get from you and you (and any other from the signees) did not want to work with me on the matter. I recognize my mail back then could have been better worded and I am really sorry for that. I can also imagine that the outcome was not the one you were looking for. But if we cannot discuss together calmly about this subject, I fear we will not be able to get anything positive. It is crucial to be able to identify scenarios, analyze and evaluate them together. I cannot read minds, but I can discuss until I get a clear understanding of the situation and, more importantly, a perfect understanding of your expectations (and criteria for acceptable solutions). We may have failed to get our mutual expectations right. And it goes without saying that I am still ready and motivated to restart our discussion from scratch in order to get better solutions. Telling me "here is a problem. now it is your problem" doesn't work. Replying once "your fist attempt is not the one I wanted. you failed. good bye" is not helping anyone of us. Refusing to talk to someone putting huge efforts and motivation will not help your cause. Sincerely, -- Mehdi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature