Re: A few high level questions for all platforms
* Jose Miguel Parrella <bureado@debian.org> [2019-03-19 18:43]:
> * 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?
I intend to make use of the delegations process (maybe I'll even
create some new roles) and if elected I'd like to work closely with
the other people who ran for DPL.
More generally, in projects and boards I tend to get involved in, I
often find myself doing the things that nobody else does. I think the
DPL role can be like that sometimes, too.
I *do* believe it's important for the DPL to look at the big picture
and see where connections can be made or where things are not going
well. However, that doesn't mean that the DPL has to resolve all of
these problems personally.
Everyone who has worked with me knows that I'm not afraid to ask for
little favours. ;-) As I mentioned in my platform, asking the right
person directly can be very effective.
I started working on a list of tasks that I'd like to see done. Once
I have a list, the next step is to identify *who* can do those tasks.
I suspect a lot of them don't actually have to be done by the DPL.
> * 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.?
We've had a Debian speakers list for many years, although I don't
think it's well known or maintained: https://www.debian.org/events/speakers/
I'd definitely encourage other people to represent Debian, and
sometimes ask people who attend conferences to be more visible about
their affiliation (many of us wear many different hats). At the same
time, as mentioned in my platform, there are cases where they want the
DPL. (I've been invited as a speaker to at least one conference where
the current DPL was not available and I was their next "best" choice
because I was at least a former DPL ;)
Resolving differences: it depends on the differences. If it's a
technical difference, you might be able to refer it to the TC. If it
involves violations of the CoC, it might be something for the
anti-harassment team. I've been wondering if there should be a team
to deal with more general social differences. I'm not sure right now,
to be honest, but it's something I will think about some more. (In my
experience, this is the most frustrating part of being DPL and so
anything to make that better is obviously a good idea.).
Expenditures: I don't mind doing this anyway and it gives a good
overview of what's going on in the project. However, I'd like to be
less reactive and more proactive, e.g. encouraging people to go to
conferences, identifying where hardware might be useful, etc. (both of
which can also be done by delegates, though).
> * 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?
Not right now, although my ideas of spending Debian's money might
trigger some GRs. :-P
Seriously though, I think the project needs some fundamental changes.
It's possible we may require changes to some documents eventually, but
we're not there -- first of all we need some honest conversations
about who/what we want to be. (See the vision question later)
> * 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?
There have been various suggestions to replace the DPL with a team or
a board. So far, I have been a bit sceptical of the merits, but I've
started to see some merits in a board plus an executive director /
DPL. This is another area I intend to think about more in order to
form a clearer opinion.
I currently don't plan to change anything about the DPL structure, but
this may well change over the course of the year.
While I'm not planning to form a DPL team, I intend to work closely
with others (maybe as informal DPL helpers) and see where delegation
is possible (see the first question). If elected, I'd certainly plan
to work closely with some of the other DPL candidates.
> * 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?
We don't have a vision or 5 year plan apart from our overall goal to
produce the best free OS out there. I believe that it would help to
take a step back and to look at the big picture. Right now we're in
this mode where we keep packages in Debian up-to-date and get out a
release every few years, but I think we need to take more time to
reflect to ask where we are and where we want to be. Sometimes you're
blind because you're too involved -- you need to step back and look at
it from the outside.
So I think we should reflect and create a vision. This isn't
necessarily a *technical* vision (e.g. "we want to see these
features", although I believe release goals are important) but a
vision of the project itself -- how are we operating, how can we
improve the way we operate as a project (culture, technologies, etc).
In summary, a vision for Debian, the project, is crucial. A vision for
Debian, the OS, is important but less so because it depends on what
people are going to work on (this is similar to Linus Torvalds saying
he has no plan for Linux -- whatever features get added that people
contribute).
--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/
Reply to: