Re: A few high level questions for all platforms
On 15347 March 1977, Jose Miguel Parrella wrote:
* As a DPL, what steps would you take (if any) towards reducing the
workload and breadth of activities the DPL is expected to engage in?
Depending on the actual activity and there being any volunteers, it may
get delegated.
* Would you pursue delegating functions such as representing Debian (as
a spokesperson or otherwise), resolving differences in the project or
signing authority for expenditures, etc.?
Now that highly depends on the function. First off, any DD can
"represent" Debian, in some ways. That doesn't need a DPL hat. Sure, the
hat makes it somewhat more "official", but same as any DD, the DPL can
not just go there and "reveal" the new, big, until-now-secret direction
of Debian (or other crazy stuff). Something like that needs the project
to decide on it with the usual way.
But yes, depending on/with some events/companies, speaking as a DPL will
be perceived much more strongly. Any "normal" DD won't be heard. If that
is the case, and if its sufficient, a delegation can be good.
Resolving differences: I think we have ways to do that with technical
differences, so I assume you think of social ones. Being a participant
in the current two bigger such issues, I do think that we can still
evolve a lot there, and a delegation *may* be part of it. But there are
numerous people in the various involved teams already thinking about it,
I don't want to take an early step here and "announce" it should go this
or that way.
Signing for expenditure: I think it should stay the DPLs job to make
large decisions about Debian assets. I also think that not each little
cent needs to be approved by the DPL. Say, something like "DSA can spend
anything below $amount within $timeframe on hardware" (eg. to replace
broken disks) is a good thing to do and can easily be extended to other
such predictable spendings.
* Do you anticipate anything in your platform would require an amendment
to the constitution or a foundation document, or to otherwise call a GR
within the next year? If so, what is it and how would you debate it?
I do not expect a change to a foundational document, but depending on
how it goes, two or three points in it could end up as a GR to have
project backup.
* Do you believe in the concept of a DPL team? If so, do you plan to
implement such a concept in the next year? If so, how?
I do not believe in a DPL team as a predefined thing that MUST happen
and has THOSE members. So no, I do not intend to implement such a concept.
OTOH, as I wrote, I'm not afraid to ask for help and there may be stuff
that can be given to others. If that's the case I would see if there is
a volunteer for it.
* Do you believe Debian is actively pursuing a vision for the next 5
years? If so, what is it? If not, do you think it should? And if so, how
do you expect to work with all the decision-making bodies?
Oi, those are loads of ? here.
I do not think Debian as a whole has a common vision for the next 5
years ecept for "Enhance it and release the next version". Which is a
good vision in and of itself, but (I guess) probably not what you ask
for. I assume a vision for your question would be more like "We need to
become the #1 container provider for all the newfangled technology". Or
"We must integrate all and everything from any derivative and offer it
within Debian directly".
I do not think that there is such a common vision all over Debian.
Instead I think there are multiple areas / groups of people that do have
their own vision where to go with Debian. Like there are the people
working on the cloud stuff, those with Debian med, people who want to
see Debian as the one place for all of nodejs/rust/go/... with all that
entails.
And I think it is a good thing that we have so many different areas.
Molding them all together based on our common grounds makes us stronger
as a whole.
And the way the DPL can work with any decision-making body is by talking.
By organizing meetings, possibly joint ones for multiple teams. And by
finding out what they need and if applicable, get that to them.
--
bye, Joerg
Reply to: