---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: DebConf "Legal" BoF continued - lets get it to a Delegation Date: Sunday 11 June 2006 17:43 From: Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> Joerg Jaspert dijo [Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:31:46PM +0200]: > (...) > So, I propose to delegate > > Andreas Schuldei (lead of the team), > Fabian Fagerholm, > Gunnar Wolf, > Joerg Jaspert > > as the DebConf organizers[1] > (...) > [1] And Holger Levsen also, if he is a DD by then. If not then that > should be done right after he got it. In general, I agree with what has been said in this thread: This delegation could work, yes, but I'm not sure if it needs to be this way. It would be fine with me if we had one delegate (namely, Andreas). Yes, if the main rationale is to make access to SPI-held money (or similar), having a second or third person makes some sense. And having people spread over more countries, to make access to more accounts easier, makes more sense - But it gets to a point where it is not that logical anymore. On one side, I acknowledge Tolimar's concern - He has been as involved as many, and wasn't considered in your list (which is, yes, just a preliminary version). But then again, we have too many people which have done a lot of work. Why do we need a big group of delegates? The work, in the end, will continue to be done by the same group that has handled it so far, and quite probably in the same fashion. Now, about keeping the group of delegates as people with access to the accounts: It's also not very logical in each of the cases. Take me as an example. Had I been a delegate last year, yes, we would have saved about two weeks when we requested SPI's money, around March. It would have been most welcome. And I guess you added me in the list because of my _previous_ work in Debconf - But I truly hope that this year we won't need anybody in Mexico with this access. Yes, "access" basically means "you can ask SPI for money and suchandsuch" - but what's the logic behind the specific delegations? Why do we need a large team of delegates? Yes, I had told you in private I am interested and OK in being part of this group - but I want to be sure it is a needed thing before. Right now, I tend to think that having only one delegate would work fine. And having no formal delegates, as up to now, could still work, IMHO. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpy8I7VnUJ3W.pgp
Description: PGP signature