Re: [Debconf-team] Regarding DebConf13 planned location
On 26/11/12 20:22, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Actually, there may be other options open to the DPL in this scenario
Although the team made a decision, a contract can not be signed if the
budget is not endorsed by the DPL. So the DPL could defer ratification
of the budget on any of these grounds:
- to ask the debconf-team to convene another IRC meeting to discuss the
concerns of Marga, Ana and Steve.
or
- one concern I heard over the weekend is that some regular sponsors are
giving money for `Debian' and it is all spent on DebConf. I don't want
to give the impression that DebConf fundraising has misled these
sponsors, however, it is possible that if nobody else contacted the
sponsors,
a) the sponsors do not realize there is a difference between a donation
to Debian and to Debconf, or
b) they have some annual budget line for Debian, and because nobody
contacted them about Debian itself, they allocated 100% of that budget
line to DebConf
The DPL could potentially do an audit of some of these sponsors and find
out if they expect their money to go exclusively into DebConf or if
their donations can be spread across mini-DebConfs, server purchases, etc
At the end of the day, the regular sponsors (e.g. Google) are giving
money because of 20 years of blood, sweat and tears that people have
poured into this project, not because the sponsors are endorsing
something specific about DebConf13. So I certainly feel the wider
community should have some input into how that money is spent.
Reply to: