Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf governance discussion
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:36:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:42:26PM +0200, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:56:07AM -0700, Patty Langasek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 02:32:30PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> > > <lots of snipping>
>
> > > > The above was a long paragraph to state that I currently prefer
> > > > madduck's proposal to yours.
>
> > > Agreed. Taking our comments when we're separated isn't going to resolve
> > > anything. And, if anything, fully encourages me to make sure I have lunch
> > > with madduck and OdyX to prepare that both dinners can drive a consistent
> > > message, which is probably exactly what you don't want, and exactly what I
> > > will do (and I fully admit I'll do it).
>
> > How is that negative? Right now I see something like 10 different messages,
> > if we have a meeting and there is only 3 different messages, it's an improvement...
>
> Because consensus of the part is not a proxy for consensus of the whole, and
> dividing the groups arbitrarily by local team distorts the conversation.
>
> Siloing of local teams is a persistent problem within DebConf organization,
> which has reached an all-time high this year with people telling me "the
> local team should be planning to take care of <list of functions that are
> completely invisible to anyone following debconf-team and which have
> historically been driven by a team of long-term domain experts>". It's not
> healthy to have on the one hand people saying "there is no local or global
> team, just the team", and on the other hand saying "you'd better find local
> volunteers for these things that have nothing to do with the conference's
> location or else DebConf won't happen".
>
> So no, I don't intend to participate in any plan that involves separating
> the teams by year to have separate conversations. It's hard enough to
> improve the institutional continuity of DebConf year over year due to the
> nature of the work and the burnout factor; we don't need to make it worse by
> quarantining the teams for such an important discussion topic.
>
I feel like we're discussing two totally different issues here O_o
If you're against the chairs talking with people grouping them by debconf
year or global team, suggest something else. I understond that the goal
here is taking the time to hear what everybody has to say about the
problems and possible solutions.
Reply to: