Re: [Debconf-discuss] [Debconf-team] dysfunctional team, how to proceed (Re: Is arriving Friday 22nd ok?)
> We cannot risk arriving at the point where the local team "gets out of
> this topic" and acts on themselves. We have friction? We must work on
> it. Because it's quite easy for _them_ to push _us_ out of orga. And
> that would be a disaster - I don't think it's far-fetched to say it
> could signal the end of DebConf as we know it. Don't walk that way.
I agree, we mustn't let this happen, and from my point of view it's
not even near of that happening.
> Adnan, the only point I'm trying to make here, and I hope you see my
> words as more understanding to the effort you are making, is that when
> we don't act decently coordinated... We fail. So, it could be easy for
> us to have a great and fun conference in Bosnia which carries the
> "DebConf" brand but is not really DebConf - We just have to step
> aside. But we want to keep it DebConf. And we want next and future
> years' DebConfs at a comparable level. so, yes, maybe you can see us
> as mediocre by not wanting a shining super-conf for 1500
> attendees. But really, we are organizing what we know and what we can
> repeat elsewhere.
I do understand what you're trying to say, and for this whole time I
wasn't trying to make it anything but DebConf, if it's not DebConf
then *we* fail.
> Of course we want DC11 to shine. But we don't want it to shine in a
> way different from our line of work. As it has been said, "that's not
> the Debian way". We have to work together.
*Agreed
> Please, both ends of this tension: Help us fix this before it ruptures
> further.
I'm != tension, nor I started this and I'm all to have it as calm and
settled as possible. In future I suggest we communicate more nicely to
each other, as we're all overworked + we're discussing everything
remotely so at the times our messages may not be conveyed the best way
and the way we intended them to be interpreted.
Adnan
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> wrote:
> [ Replying after reading Holger's handover of posting responsability
> ;-) ]
>
> Adnan Hodzic dijo [Mon, May 02, 2011 at 05:27:23PM +0200]:
>> > learn to read and/or english and/or logic. You said we have to do this. I said
>> > thats bullshit, but we probably could still do it.
>>
>> Of course you could, because in the end I'll end up being the one:
>> "you are doing what you want".
>
> When we start bulshitting each other we stop reading each other's
> argument.
>
> So, Holger, it's hard to be calm but you should do it. Yes, again
> speaking from the DC6 experience: It's very easy for Adnan to feel
> hurt by a seemingly innocent comment. He is putting quite probably
> full-time commitment for some time already, and won't be able to do
> much besides DebConf organizing from now until August. It can be
> pretty exhausting. So, if we detect communication failures, avoid
> making them bigger.
>
>> (...)
>> > > Do whatever you want, I'm out of this topic.
>> >
>> > you summarized nicely how I see this years DebConf "team": dysfunctional. one
>> > important detail I see differently though: you are doing what you want,
>> > whatever we discuss on the list or in irc meetings, doesnt seem to be in your
>> > focus. it is impossible to work together like this.
>>
>> Our team is summarized by our work and our deeds, which talk for themselves.
>
> We cannot risk arriving at the point where the local team "gets out of
> this topic" and acts on themselves. We have friction? We must work on
> it. Because it's quite easy for _them_ to push _us_ out of orga. And
> that would be a disaster - I don't think it's far-fetched to say it
> could signal the end of DebConf as we know it. Don't walk that way.
>
>> The reason I said what I said above is, because option of having
>> people arrive early would be feasible from financial aspect, this
>> topic has been around for months now, what seems to make it unfeasible
>> is the work that it would be required from the team. That is
>> disapproval from "global-team", I'm fine with that, the less work, the
>> better it is for us.
>>
>> I don't know what you were trying to achieve with this email, but no
>> one will say work I or my team do is "bullshit'.
>
> Adnan, the only point I'm trying to make here, and I hope you see my
> words as more understanding to the effort you are making, is that when
> we don't act decently coordinated... We fail. So, it could be easy for
> us to have a great and fun conference in Bosnia which carries the
> "DebConf" brand but is not really DebConf - We just have to step
> aside. But we want to keep it DebConf. And we want next and future
> years' DebConfs at a comparable level. so, yes, maybe you can see us
> as mediocre by not wanting a shining super-conf for 1500
> attendees. But really, we are organizing what we know and what we can
> repeat elsewhere.
>
> Of course we want DC11 to shine. But we don't want it to shine in a
> way different from our line of work. As it has been said, "that's not
> the Debian way". We have to work together.
>
> Please, both ends of this tension: Help us fix this before it ruptures
> further.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNvtQCAAoJEGc6A+TB25IfPCQP/0hrjzDVeX2zEebqQy6IY8gZ
> tl4TtNjTjF4tw14H3QK+JQjQ7X6qP5vq13EB7gKoy7USsDXXiVJwGBlF2AJJCfbm
> jctC1KgE0SCskzZhxKdQyMHIyIPY3A0BhXLFut1wyBcVNx8kMcJxJMJOJmgdESNI
> up3XRT40jplJZPjUeFNpbhhz+metlq8iKG7L6Cz8skJ//2lW7oaI2L4iLcuIcwQX
> MMWR8crgTduqzCOSKJIZUTZmmSl7Q3ycibszDygHbmY3uOP2XrjsxP4xnAc514jd
> jHR0QPBeyB8ruOhHN576fBH269MwrTPWtF5g3V2wHQ9+EEuFGc+Gi4dzYXDXUCte
> 4PeE4JRx5KVcnIBWoGxzLLCB0TBF2ypP6fni/8m6XtHRp3loHSkFmN8yuAGNM0fD
> WvVMsQRQmmMjw9Ymajx0ZuDVjMh3MMpnr04IXFJ2pNDIl2PzD/5fMRj0kyp2pOpl
> tZSlCxmgeu5jZniwKztawt7HZ3CXLgGud+jnTQ64c8zZbYWQta8rsT+Bi3+dpt3H
> AZgq8qAklexTJcIIysuk2sII4jTuRXDzUVh++7/zdzIEbOUdzWj1Mzm5FUvz0dP5
> qpEbKHpU8PA3GbI7GfBmOeig36C/HHPNtZ5RTr1HDpnN/UnOOOtAw+H6Cx47rKJ2
> sG/Yot2lZb8sfzk+3C18
> =Y1hl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Reply to: