Re: [Debconf-team] A proposal about scheduling for DC14
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:03:33AM -0700, Patty Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:38:36PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> > So, yes, if we have to decide between three days of mostly-hackning
> > (read: What was previously known as DebCamp) and three days of
> > mostly-conference (read: What was previously known as DebConf), I
> > think the point pushed by the local team about DebCamp not being a net
> > benefit for Debian would defeat itself. Interleaving mostly-talks and
> > mostly-hacking days would at least introduce a change that could in
> > some way be evaluated.
>
> I don't believe that the point "pushed by the local team about DebCamp not
> being a net benefit for Debian would defeat itself", because that doesn't
> take into account how we attempted to restructure "DebCamp" to ensure more
> people could participate without increasing a cost to Debian.
>
> DebCamp is expensive. DebCamp, as it existed, had no way to ensure those who
> were attending were held accountable for being hosted, on Debian funds, to
> collaborate with others. And, as an organizer, I've received multiple
> complaints from people who *fully expected* to be able to collaborate with
> others who were hosted at a DebCamp, and the others were no where to be
> found, and the report back was that they were indeed *not* hacking.
>
> I know this is not true for everyone, but this is most certainly a case
> where a few people have "ruined" the situation for everyone, and we *need*
> to find a way to actually make this work. I will point out that I have
> REPEATEDLY offered to help organize any sprints that people would like to
> have in Portland before (or after) the conference proper, and Lucas has
> offered to sign off on any of those sprints. To my knowledge, NOBODY has
> gone through the process to request a sprint. This suggests to me that
> DebCamp really was more about convenience than actually planning on
> collaboration.
>
> So, the local team for DC14 chose to attempt to incorporate DebCamp *into*
> DebConf to address this issue. If it will work or not is what we'll see
> after August.
>
> And, quite frankly, I'm extremely insulted by the attitude of those who have
> been crying out about the lack of a DebCamp and declaring that the lack is a
> "bug" from DC14's planning, but haven't been bothered to even *apply* for a
> sprint. If this were sincerely about needing to collaborate, I would expect
> at least one sprint to be requested. None have. NONE. NOT. A. SINGLE.
> ONE.
Hacking on debcamp is not the same as doing a sprint. In debcamp we know that
many people from different fronts in Debian will be there, and such inter-teams
collaboration is important. Also, being debcamp an 'official' part of the
Debian anual conference makes things easier for those who need to justify days
off from school/job/whatever. In debcamp, random hacking sessions also happen,
without any previews work plan. It happened to me to do totally different work
from what I've planned just because I found other people working on things that
were much more motivating to me at that time. It also happened to be called by
others to help with large bunch of missing translation, which I doubt I could
do in my 'regular' days at home. I see the same happing with others many times.
> If DebCamp is that sincerely important to your team, or coordination of a
> couple of teams, REQUEST A SPRINT FROM LUCAS. CLEARLY if DebCamp was so
> important, we would be OVERWHELMED with sprint requests! But, we haven't.
Sprints can be request over the year, it doesn't need to be just before/after
Debconf. Debcamp is not sprint, this assumption is wrong. And this difference
does not mean that debcamp is free vacation. It's unfair, really, reading such
a comment (from steve) as response to someone (gregor) we know does lots of
hard work in debcamp is more than disturbing.
> So, please help us figure out how to actually incorporate *hacking* with
> *talks*.
I don't have a strong opinion about this new DC format, I hope I have one after
the conference. I feel it was not much discussed before being decided, that's
the main problem to me, sorry if I'm wrong. My general comment on this is that
once the thing is done, let's do it in a way we can compare it to the
traditional format in the end, so having alternate sessions, as proposed
originally, or the mixed proposal, which looks reasonable to me as well -- for
the purpose.
Regards,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.''`. Tiago Vaz GPG : 1024D/A504FECA
: :' : http://acaia.ca/~tiago XMPP : tiago at jabber.org
`. `' tiago at debian.org IRC : tiago at OFTC
`- Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal OS http://www.debian.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: