Re: [Debconf-team] Unfinished tasks from DebConf6
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:21:17PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>> * Joerg Jaspert (joerg@debconf.org) [060725 22:50]:
>> > On 10726 March 1977, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>> > > i suggest that those that took away the authority
>> > The team did not took it away, you resigned.
>> Some (or all?) in the team took it, as well as others outside the
>> team. A team leader gets authority from the team which follows
>> and trusts the leader and/or expresses support when the authority
>> of the leader is in question. Also see "dict authority".
>
> Likewise, a leader gets support when they demonstrate that they're
> taking the interests of their team into account, explaining why they're
> exercising that authority so other people understand what's going on,
> and being accountable for their decisions. That applies both to getting
> support from the orga team here, and support from the Debian project
> in general.
>
> The easiest way to provide that sort of accountability and explanation
> for decisions like this is coming up with a list of criteria for the
> decision and providing an open space for people to discuss those criteria
> and add their own; unfortunately you were mostly inclined to cut that
> discussion off at the knees [0] or just ignore it [1] up until the second
> meeting. You can see plenty of other examples of that sort of approach
> to people's concerns working poorly in Debian, and resulting in a loss
> of trust.
>
> I'm sorry that you were and are unhappy that I intervened at that point
> to have that process be followed so that there was a clear explanation
> available on what basis the decision was made, and I'm particularly sorry
> I couldn't come up with a way of doing that in a way that appropriately
> respected your contributions to debconf to date so that you'd be happy
> to continue contributing. But I couldn't, and debconf is bigger than
> any one contributor and isn't anyone's fiefdom, and for it to continue
> being successful, it's important that it's run in a way that makes sense
> to everyone involved.
>
>> A removal of a delegation is also an expression of distrust and
>> removal of authority and of course also the responsibility.
>
> The delegation was removed for the reasons I cited in [2], namely that,
> in my view, the team was failing to come to a decision in a way that
> involved as much input from the orga team and the Debian community as
> possible, would clear up confusion about the relationship between Debian
> and debconf, and to come to a decision that was based on something more
> than just personal preference.
>
> If you wish to view that as an expression of distrust or otherwise as
> insulting and disrespectful, that's your choice; but it wasn't intended
> that way, either to you or to any of the other delegates, as I believe
> should have been clear from some of the private comments I made, to you
> personally and the delegates as a group.
>
> I know you've already expressed the concern that debconf is going to
> change drastically [3]. I think you're both drastically overestimating my
> influence, such as it is, and dramatically underrating your own influence
> on the conference over the past few years, and the degree to which both
> the local and international members of the debconf orga team appreciate
> your work, and will try to continue it even in your absence.
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:53:32PM +0200, Safir Secerovic wrote:
>> you used the right words, it "appears" and it "seems" to you that this
>> was
>> a "status quo" state, but it might not have reflected the state as it
>> has
>> actually been in.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the state of affairs before the delegation
> was that the orga team as a group would make a decision by consensus on
> which was the most suitable venue, and to the best of my knowledge that's
> what eventually happened. The time of the meeting where that happened
> was established well in advance, and the open discussion that took
> place on the companion channel while the main channel was moderated was
> forwarded to the main channel whenever appropriate to ensure everyone's
> concerns were heard. I'm sorry that you apparently feel hard done by,
> but you weren't deprived of any chances Edinburgh had, and the reasons
> they got the conference are listed in the meeting minutes [4] -- there
> isn't anything more to it than that.
>
Really? There is more to add to that, namely, as one can see from the
minutes, people making decisions on the points have been mainly from
Debian UK team (members easily seen from the meeting log and from Debian
UK wiki page) and yourself (Australia), except Ganneff (Germany). All
"slightly strongish" in favor of Edinburgh.
> If you had received any assurances Sarajevo would be holding debconf
> before that was discussed amongst the orga team and Debian as a whole,
> that would have been entirely inappropriate, and if so, I'm sorry you
> were misled in that manner.
>
That thesis sound ridiculous to me. No, we have not received any
assurances, we respect the "fair play" priciples unlike some.
> That said, on the basis of the bid for DebConf 7, I still hold the view
> [5] that holding a regional Debian or Linux conference in Sarajevo
> would be possible and worthwhile, and I think it would be great for
> Sarajevo, Debian and Linux to start an annual "Balkans" conference of
> some description -- and I know there's enough interest built up from the
> bid already for Debian to be involved to that to some degree; but how
> much depends on what the locals actually think of holding a conference
> of their own at all, and what level of involvement they'd actually like
> from Debian.
Well, we are much more capable that what you propose us. We have organized
Winter Olympic Games here in 1984, so surely, Sarajevo is capable of
organizing a DebConf. Local conference, if we want, we could organize
ourselves, but not DebConf.
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> [0]
> http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20060705.181923.927c1bfa.en.html
> [1]
> http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20060706.143715.be1fc909.en.html
> [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/07/msg00041.html
> [3]
> http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20060710.182941.71b31229.en.html
> [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/07/msg00045.html
> [5]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/debconf-team@lists.debconf.org/msg00769.html
>
>
Regards,
Safir Secerovic
Reply to: