[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf organization working group and next steps


On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Tassia <tassia@acaia.ca> wrote:
> We agreed that the chairs would take on the administrative task of
> facilitating the teams' composition, so I'll explain in a bit more
> detail how we are going to proceed.
> As soon as we have agreed on a list of subteams, we are going to publish
> a call for help, inviting people for a long-term commitment to a
> specific team. We are also going to send individual invitations for
> people who have already helped in specific tasks in previous years and
> are no longer involved with DebConf organization.

As this has already started for the fundraising team (with extra
urgency due to time pressure), I'd like to point out a couple of
things that I consider might be done better for future teams.

I consider it a mistake to mail the "current" members of a team,
telling them that they are past members (personally, I found this very
very troubling). I think that the process of figuring out the teams
should include:
 1 - Talking with the current members of the team, asking them if they
want to continue working on it in the future (but not telling them
that they are past members).
 2 - Inviting past members to join the current members.
 3 - Inviting some people that are "local" to the next year DebConf to
join the team, already asking them for a longer term commitment.

I think it also makes sense to send more personalized mails. i.e. "You
worked on the talks team in DC10 and you made such a great job, would
you be interested in joining the team once again?" instead of just
"you are a past member of the talks team..."

And all this work should be work done in agreement and together with
the current team members, not a complete reboot pretending that they
don't have any say in what happens next.

> When the base groups are formed, the lead and shadow positions will
> emerge by answers to these questions: "Who would make good leaders for
> those teams?" and "If you see yourself as a team leader, who would be
> good alongside you?".

I think these questions can be improved, particularly because you are
asking for nominations for shadow and wizard only if one nominates
oneself. I would prefer to be able to nominate leads, shadows and
wizards even if I don't nominate myself.

The second question as worded here is fine and makes sense, a lead and
a shadow should be able to work together. But in the email it had the
addition of being the only point of including shadows and wizards,
which I think was a mistake.


Reply to: