>>>>> "Jose" == Jose Miguel Parrella <bureado@debian.org> writes:
Jose> The question is _what_ would be up for discussion, given it's
Jose> only a year.
In the discussions here, three items have come up that resonate with me
significantly:
1) Can we recommend/require dh > 9?
2) Do we want to more strongly recommend that people have packages in
Git repos on Salsa?
3) An eventual Git-based source format.
Note that I've discussed these as pure items about policy around
packaging. However, embedded in these discussions will be questions of
work flow and collaboration.
So, at a minimum, I'd like to try and lead discussions on these 3 items.
The specific discussions will be very different, but I think they will
all be valuable discussions in helping make it easier to contribute to
Debian.
I'm sure other issues will come up, but those three are specifically
items that people in the -vote discussion seem open to discussing more
broadly and that I think are real pain points.
Jose> Sam's platform is principled about the DPL not
Jose> having an agenda and OK with leaving some things as they
Jose> are.
I don't think the DPL should have an agenda on what the answer should
be. I think a DPL should have an agenda on questions to ask and on how
they will focus their effort.
(And I think collaboration with others is a great way to broaden that
agenda and allow us to make progress on more than one person's focuses)
Jose> In Sam's platform, the difficulty of making changes in
Jose> Debian is a "perception".
It's a bit more complex than that. First, I do think that there is a
perception change is hard. That alone is bad: it discourages people
from driving changes and creates a perception that Debian is harder to
join and contribute to.
Beyond that though, I think that decisions are actually difficult to make.
I think that fixing that may involve better use of tools that we already
have rather than new tools. I think we could do a lot more of
summarizing and leading discussions and calling consensus explicitly to
the extent we have it. I think we could do a lot more of helping people
feel heard and considered so they do not feel a need to repeat the same
point again and again. I think that putting someone in charge of
driving a discussion can be valuable because they can help make sure
that important parties don't drop the discussion and things don't stall.
And as I discussed, I think that we can find less confrontational ways
to use our existing tools to make decisions when consensus doesn't
happen.
Jose> I get that no one wants to run for DPL on a platform of "let's
Jose> get rid of the DPL" but Sam says he doesn't "see significant
Jose> changes in governance required" while Martin mentions "change"
Jose> 9 times, including: "I think Debian has reached a point where
Jose> it's important to fundamentally rethink how our community
Jose> operates"
I don't think the way Martin uses operates is really similar to the way
I use governance.
Which is to say I don't see an inherent conflict in saying that Debian's
governance doesn't need to change significantly, while the way Debian
operates does.
I suspect Martin and I do disagree some here, especially around
degreee and on how well Debian is working today. I'm just not sure the
text you point to is a good example of that disagreement.
Jose> It's also clear there's a different approach to money and
Jose> resources in the two platforms.
That's not obvious to me. Martin and I seem reasonably well aligned on
*what* we'd like to have happen with money. Martin is willing to take
more risk than I am to get there (or try something new) on the money
front; especially he's willing to risk more controversy.
I'd love to accomplish the same goals, but I'm not willing to take on as
much risk to do it, and I think the best way for me to drive those goals
might well be to delegate to someone else.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature