also sprach Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> [2014-04-28 13:36 +0200]:
> I think one thing that has helped me in the past is to keep in mind
> that when I work on something in a DebConf subteam, that we are
> working on a proposal for presentation to the larger team, and need to
> understand that the proposal may not reflect the final decision.
This is precisely what DC15 have been doing.
In my ideal world, however, the presentation to the larger team
should neither constitute an invitation for everyone to voice their
opinions or state how they would do things differently; nor would
the presentation be framed such that a decision by the larger team
were necessary.
Instead, the presentation would force the smaller team to get their
act together and give a status report. The recipient (larger) team
of this status report would start out from a level of trust (after
all, they elected the team to do the work), focus on the issue at
hand (and not how someone in a parallel universe could also approach
this problem differently) and ask appropriate questions whose
purpose is to alert and hint, not to control.
After such a status update, the reporting team would have an updated
understanding of where they stand on the road between now and the
goal and whether they managed to drag the larger team along.
But they would continue to work within their bounds as before.
Right now we have a culture in which — speaking for myself only
— I dread having to approach the larger team for advice and
comments, because I can forecast the difficulties and delays this
brings. I do it anyway, because (as h01ger said) we are actually one
big team, not two teams working against each other, and the success
of DebConf depends in part on how well we manage to stick together.
And it's not all negative: we've received very valuable input in
the last 4 weeks, so this by itself is motivation to keep doing it.
However, where I would really like to see our culture heading is
towards a partnership, a culture with sparrings partners and clearly
defined roles and powers. I hope one day, we'll find a way by which
a local team does not have to fear or be uncertain about what it may
or may not actually do, and rather appreciates (not dreads) the
possibility to seek advice from dc-team (or the "elders").
This is the perspective I have (again, speaking only for myself),
and maybe this explains a bit my anti-authoritarian behaviour,
challenging the roles and powers of the current chairs, because I'd
rather go to them for advice, frequently, and respect what they have
to say, than be told that I have to bow to them.
> Generally speaking, when keeping this mindset that what is being
> presented is a draft, and that I expect to change it based on
> feedback from the larger group, it seems for whatever reason to be
> much smoother.
With one exception: when the group doesn't have the necessary
background information, such as when dealing with local legal
constructs or tax issues. In that case, I think it's inappropriate
to except anyone to convey the lacking background. Instead, there
ought to be delegates empowered to make decisions.
--
.''`. 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)