Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf orga/governance sessions at DC14
Hello,
I’m not going to DC14, so I put my comments about governance.
First: I don’t like the proposal of Martin:
- it seems to requires/encourage big local teams (so no new
countries/continents)
- IMHO will demotivate regular organisers/volunteers
- not so flexible (in last debconfs we did a lot of experimentation:
DC12 without local DD, DC13 with old style (sleeping bag style), DC14
without DebCamp, DC15 without a fix city at bid decision.
But I’m going to present my view of problem and proposal.
I think one of the root of the problem is the bid process: bid teams are
almost alone to prepare the bid (which it is also good on helping
screening bids/teams), than they are required to put a complete proposal
(IIRC networking always is a big concern on the bid valuation), then for
6 to 9 month they are still alone (nobody care about the debconfN+1)
needing to things all things. Then at start of autumn, the start of
flames: non-local people start reading the bid and complain/flaming
(location, sleeping bags, no-debcamp). Note: the local team was working
since a year with the idea proposed on the bid, which crete strong words
and demotivation.
So my proposal:
The bid should be simplified: the basic should be only venue,
accommodation, food (and a short feasibility check of the other topics).
Note: some team could do more complete bid. But I’m also thinking that
this is the only way to get DebConf on new places (with less experienced
people, few locals, or also in other continents) but also without
penalising the big countries.
Anyway bid teams are encouraged to experiment with new ideas (like in
last/current DCs)
There is also a problem with team know-how, and not clear responsible
person (IMHO video-team had such problem: there was not clear
responsible (did the previous Commander-In-Chief stepped down or not, so
I think there was some misunderstanding and frictions with local team).
So I think we need clear responsible persons. Also some team (admin,
network, video) have great know-how, so should endure more than one
DebConf (most of team-members, usual rotation is needed).
The important teams should have two (one to four) responsible persons,
which should check that thing go smooth and communicate with -team.
the debconf-team with few secretaries: previously chairs used to push
things and meetings, but in tho DC it was done by local people, so I
think one of current representative of current DC and for next DC should
call meetings and push things.
sponsors, bursaries, registration, etc. in same manner, with local
representatives. These team could be created every year.
accounting: I don’k know. It seems that here in Europe it is very
important to have good books.
video, network admin, etc.: they should need few representatives, to
preserve know-how and to help local organisation answering the usual
logistic questions needed to choose rooms, etc. I think most of people
on that teams should serve for many DebConf.
But all of this should be self-organised (within debconf-team). Maybe
the responsible person could be chosen in a meeting (so to make things
more official), but without much micro-managing. In regular team meeting
the sub team could discuss about important things (budget related, or
that affect the whole organisation), but no need to go for every details
in mailing list -team, and no need to search consensus. IMHO it is ok to
ask opinion in -team, but I would leave the teams to decide (taking into
account options, and ev. strong opposition, but consensus is almost a
lost of time)
So, the chairs? As I interpret the last mail of Lucas, it seems that we
should self organise and let the chair to be more a link./control
between -team and Debian, so I left them out of governance (but current
chairs are also part of various sub teams)
ciao
cate
PS: and if we will improve the DebConf Manual after this (and each)
DebConf, we could reduce more the frustration than
implementing/testing/correcting/testing/correcting/... new governance.
Reply to: