Re: A few high level questions for all platforms
>>>>> "Jose" == Jose Miguel Parrella <bureado@debian.org> writes:
A lot of this is in my platform but I'm answering here for clarity.
Jose> * As a DPL, what steps would you take (if any) towards
Jose> reducing the workload and breadth of activities the DPL is
Jose> expected to engage in?
I think every DPL will find their own focus and tends to delegate work
where they can clearly identify boundaries, where the work is plentiful
enough to make delegation valuable, and where there are good choices for
delegates.
In my platform I said that unless some significant problem comes up,
focusing on finances/treasury would not be my focus. I'll exercise due
diligence and make sure expenditures get approved, but won't focus a lot
of energy improving in that area.
I look forward to traveling to conferences, but suspect I won't spend as
much time doing that as some who have held the DPL office.
Jose> * Would you pursue delegating functions such as representing
Jose> Debian (as a spokesperson or otherwise), resolving differences
Jose> in the project or signing authority for expenditures, etc.?
Yes.
I am personally interested in working on resolving differences, but
that's big enough that I hope to have others helping me.
I talk about that in my platform.
I am definitely open to delegating representing Debian at events.
I think the DPL should be involved in that, but I think the DPL can
empower others to do this too.
I'm very open to delegating financial matters. The DPL needs to be
aware of what is going on enough to be accountable, but that need not
take up much time.
Bdale at least said that the entire financial task was not a huge time
sink, so I'll need to see how much time is spent on this.
Delegation is only useful if it saves time or gets things done better.
Jose> * Do you anticipate anything in your platform would require an
Jose> amendment to the constitution or a foundation document, or to
Jose> otherwise call a GR within the next year? If so, what is it
Jose> and how would you debate it?
I think that calling a GR can be a valuable tool to actually make a
decision once all the positions are known and it is clear that we don't
have consensus.
I think that by compiling the options the DPL can make that process less
confrontational.
I could see that happening as we discuss some of the pain points and
friction in our processes, and that's a tool I'd be happy to use.
I am not currently seeing any need for constitutional or foundation
document changes.
Jose> * Do you believe in the concept of a DPL team? If so, do you
Jose> plan to implement such a concept in the next year? If so, how?
Yes.
I plan to ask people to help me and then empower them to do so.
One thing I'm doing is looking at the other candidate platforms and
thinking about how aligned their ideas are and whether I could get some
of the other candidates to drive areas where they excel forward if I'm
elected.
At least initially I'd be more likely to delegate (possibly shared)
enumerated responsibilities than to say have a DPL committee.
For the most part I think the DPL has the flexibility to do either, but
I think you need to have a good working relationship with a group before
that sort of committee delegation would be a positive experience.
I've been kind of confused by all the discussions of changing our
governance to permit this. The constitution is quite flexible in this
area already.
There are a couple of corner cases that could be discussed after the
election. As an example as was pointed out earlier here, Debian France
does not currently permit the DPL to delegate expenditure approval
authority.
Similarly, I might imagine within a DPL team, we might want to be more
flexible about allowing the DPL to review decisions than with a normal
delegation. I can think of ways to phrase a delegation to permit that,
but people who wanted to be really strict about the constitution might
object.
I personally think no changes are needed. If any changes are needed
they are quite small.
The big challenge is finding DPL candidates who can construct a team
that works for them.
I think I'm good at building teams.
Jose> * Do you believe Debian is actively pursuing a vision for the
Jose> next 5 years? If so, what is it? If not, do you think it
Jose> should? And if so, how do you expect to work with all the
Jose> decision-making bodies?
I don't think Debian should have a single vision.
I think we should empower people to pursue mini-visions of how they
would change the free software world. Reproducible Builds is one such
mini-vision.
I agree with tbm that we should make this sort of visionary work easier.
I also agree that money can help this sort of driven work.
One area where I think we can improve is to remind teams within Debian
of their power especially when dealing with upstreams. Debian matters.
It's great if we have opinions on how the Linux community should work.
It's great if we constructively pursue those opinions with upstreams.
Sometimes I think we get too busy simply packaging to actually influence
the broader world.
Reply to: