On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 06:09:13PM +0100, Margarita Manterola wrote: > It has been requested that those of us that have concerns about the > DebConf13 location should formally raise them with the DPL and the > DebConf chairs. As I apparently miss some context, what does "it has been requested" mean here? I find the impersonal style weird in cases like this one, when escalating decision making. > I regret that it has come to this, but since I still do have a lot of > concerns, I'm following this path. I really couldn't help thinking of http://xkcd.com/1022/ here :-) Sorry for the bad pun, but I'd appreciate if we could all de-dramatize the decision at hand. As DPL, I've witnessed, and asked to chime in, several DebConf organization "crises". One way or another, choosing one path or the other, we've always managed to put up a good conference as a result, thanks to the dedication of the DebConf team and to the flexibility of attendees. In terms of potential attendees drop off, this decision really doesn't seem (at least to me) more risky than other choices we've made in the past, often in more calm and rationale ways. But I understand you want from me some sort of "formal" intervention, so let me give a formal answer --- from the DPL POV, the chairs will do as they please :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As I see it, the DebConf venue decision is a DebConf team decision. So how does the DebConf team decides? That's up to the team to (meta-)decide. If the team hasn't spelled that out, it is likely that Debian defaults apply, i.e.: consensus (which is != unanimity) among the people who are doing the bulk of the work. The DebConf chairs delegation [1] hasn't change any of that, on purpose. [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00005.html In terms of decision making, the only responsibility I've delegated to the chairs is the ability to "break ties", in the hopefully unlikely cases where the team reaches an impasse. I've only briefly skimmed through the logs of the meeting you pointed me too, so I might have got this wrong, but it doesn't seem to me there is an impasse. It rather seems to me that there is a decision, as well as people unhappy with it. But let's assume I've got this wrong and there is an impasse. Then the DebConf chairs are already empowered to take the responsibility of solving the impasse. Beside observing the above, I can't (at least at a formal level) do much more to help. Constitution §5.1.1 is fairly clear on the fact that once something is delegated, the DPL could not overrule the delegates in their decisions. I think that is a very important principle to uphold. What I could do, theoretically, is revoking the delegation to Gunnar, Holger, and Moray. But I do not plan to do that any time soon, as I can't find anything that they have done, or not done, that has diminished my trust in their ability to carry on the responsibility I've delegated to them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature