On 26/04/14 at 15:32 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > But when we agreed to run for DC15, there was no indication about > top-down control. There's the delegation mail, and there's > https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DecisionMaking#DebConf_Chairs.3F, but > these rather draw the picture that the chairs are the "wise elders", > not the ones exercising top-down control. > > Put differently: when we submitted our bid, we did so as a team with > the goal to organise a great conference, not because we wanted to be > the ones to proxy between venue etc. and top-down controllers who > make the decisions. > > That's the environment in which we wanted to organise a conference. > > Most of us have been involved with DebConf for several years, which > gives us a bit of a headstart for the organisation. However, never > would we assume we could or even want to organise DC15 without the > experience and the dedication of the orga team. I hope this is > evident from our actions: making preparations on the basis of sane > assumptions and then turning towards the team for feedback and > approval — even though nowhere does it say that we need this > approval. > > Again, I am not trying to split hairs, but "being responsible for > the oranisation of DebConf" might also mean "establishing a project > team to take care of the organisation", it does not need to mean > keeping that team on a leash, however long it may be. > > Now you are adding the word "success" to the delegation, which > — correct me if I am wrong — increases the pressure on the chairs > and will cause them to want to be more in charge, which is going in > the wrong direction, if you ask me. At the very least, it'll make > their job harder, since: > > > Of course, the balance is tricky to find between "too much > > oversight" and "not enough oversight", because both bring clear > > problems. That's why the DebConf chairs role is an important and > > difficult role. :) > > Exactly. And this is why we should ask ourselves whether it's the > right role, or whether there isn't a better split across multiple > roles. In the model I propose, there's indeed the possibility that chairs end up making every decision. However, that would be a total failure, both for the organization team, and for the Chairs. The spirit of the delegation is that Chairs should help the organization team make most of the decisions themselves, and be available for advice if needed. Additionally, in extreme cases, the Chairs have the veto power, but this should be seen as the nuclear weapon: we really want to try hard to avoid using it. In terms of day-to-day implementation: For not-so-important decisions, I expect the orga team to just make the decisions. For major decisions, I expect the orga team to build a proposal, and ask the Chairs for approval. In most cases, the Chairs should just approve the orga team's proposal. If there's something seriously wrong with the orga team's proposal, the Chairs should make sure that the orga team is aware of their concerns, and make the final decision based on the orga team's feedback and the severity of the problems. I'm open to changing the model, but: - I would like to keep it quite simple (the current proposal is 32 lines) - I don't want a model that is specific to a particular edition of DebConf. It should be a model that we are comfortable using for the next five DebConf, and that we would have been comfortable using for the last five DebConf. Additionally, at least one Chair would like to step down. I'd welcome suggestions of people that the DC14 and DC15 teams would be comfortable working with. Please take it as "There's a risk that we won't get Lucas to change his mind, so let's at least try to put the best people we can think of as Chairs!" :) Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature