also sprach Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2014-04-17 23:13 +0200]:
> I agree with you that the normal Debian *decision-making
> processes* are too discussion-oriented to work for the time-based
> conference organization, this does not mean that the DebConf team
> should be allowed to exist outside Debian's *governance*
> structures.
I am not advocating that. I see it rather as:
1. DPL delegates to DC chairs to liasion between D and DC team;
2. DC team (everyone) self-organises, and e.g. chose to delegate
bid selection to DC committee;
3. DC committee selects local team and delegates front seats to
them, while they go out to do the work, including negotiations
and stuff. If anyone had told me at this point that I cannot
negotiate freely but that I must turn to DC team for every
aspect of the conference, I would have resigned immediately.
4. At some point in time, there will be a budget, which DC team
signs off. It's unclear what the procedures are for this, but
I think nobody questions that it's up to the chairs to decide
the procedure ad-hoc.
5. Once the budget is done, the local team can act within the
limits of this budget.
So, the governance would extend like so:
DPL → DCH chairs → DC committee → DC local team ← DC team
It's all within Debian governance if you so will, but each interface
is defined by a set of rules of which powers are passed on and which
decisions need approval "from above".
We don't have these governance rules. Therefore, you DC14 folks and
us DC15 folks are trying hard to do the right thing, erring on the
side of caution and bringing things to public discussions when we
think that's necessary.
Unfortunately, those public discussions then quickly dissolve into
discussions about governance, about how bounds are being
overstepped and how sad people are.
That's not motivating. At all.
> In other years, we have had (and will have again) local teams that
> are not as attuned to the Debian/DebConf way, and we should not be
> setting precedent that these teams can take autonomous decisions
> that are not answerable to the Debian project.
I have drafted https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/GovernanceProposal14++
in an attempt to formalise the procedures. Not everyone will agree,
but maybe we can work from it. In
https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/GovernanceProposal14++#DebConfN_team
you will see that the advisory board's job is to make sure that the
DebConfN team has enough "attuning", as you call it, if necessary by
way of adding someone "attuned" to the team.
> In fact, I think that consensus-based decision-making is entirely
> the wrong model for organizing a conference, and that is not at
> all what I am advocating for. I only want it clear that all
> decisions made by the local org are by their nature provisional
> and *can* be overturned by the DPL.
While I fundamentally agree and have never sought to build
a structure by which to undermine the DPL (or the DD body), there
are going to be some decisions made that cannot be overturned; for
instance, once we signed that contract, Lucas can dance and stamp
his foot as much as he wants, but the contract will be binding.
This means two things: we should have procedures in place to allow
such decisions to be made, considering that it will *not* be
possible to convey all relevant information through DC-team to the
DPL for approval;
And should a decision be faulty, then it's the frickin' duty of
everyone involved to stand behind the decision maker (unless there's
malice involved of course), because if that weren't the case, you'll
be laying down the wrong incentives for anyone to organise DebConf.
> If everyone agrees with this principle, there should be no problem
> in practice; the very presence of such a principle guides people
> to frame their decisions correctly so that there's no need for
> overrides.
I think I can agree to that, except I wouldn't even try to formulate
this.
> We are in agreement regarding the need for executive decision
> making. My point is that it is not actually "obvious" that the
> board is answerable to Debian. I am looking for assurance that
> this is actually the case in practice.
I'd say the "board" (e.g. DC15 association) is answerable to DC-team
or DC-committee, which is answerable to DC chairs, who are
answerable to Debian by delegation. So, yes.
> > And in the case of DebConf, where the local team knows the venue
> > and has been talking to the people on site, it should be
> > empowered to make decisions as required, if they are in
> > accordance with a budget that's been signed off.
>
> Do you think that the local team should have the authority to sign
> contracts with the venue without review from the DPL or their
> delegates, on the grounds that the contracts fit within the budget
> limits?
Yes, I think so. But let me expand.
First, no sane local team would sign a contract without getting
dc-team behind it.
Second, what should be the official role of dc-team?
- Should they have the final say? To have the final say means to
take responsibility, means that dc-team would need to fully
understand the contract. In our case, the contract will be in
German. What now?
- So let them have a veto right, now it's the job of the local
team to convince the dc-team, without passing on responsibility.
Sounds good to me.
- Except for when dc-team does not want to be convince and e.g.
deviates into flames, bikeshedding, etc..
What should the local team now do? Should it risk losing the
contract while waiting for clearance from people who are not
actually involved?
No, I think the local team should sign the contract. The decision on
whether this particular local team should be allowed to do that or
not should have been made at time of bid selection. Put differently,
selecting a team means delegating them powers. And if a team is not
worthy of the powers, then dc-team needs to make them worthy, e.g.
by adding someone and bestow the authority onto that person only.
> Maybe we are talking past each other here and you have a different
> understanding of "fiduciary" than I do. I certainly don't mean
> that the local team should suffer from its decisions being
> constantly reviewed and questioned by the rest of the team, only
> that the local team should be accountable to Debian for their
> decisions - which it seems that you and I agree with in principle,
> even if we're using different words. I hope this response helps
> to clarify my position.
Yes, accountable! Of course. I am merely talking about powers to
take certain actions within limits. And these ought to be formalised
and not questioned thereafter.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org>
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf14: Portland, OR, USA: http://debconf14.debconf.org
DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)