On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:00:20PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> [2015-02-24 16:45 +0100]: > > > Many of us that are not in the content team would like to be able > > to read and/or participate in this discussions. It's not in the > > spirit of Debian nor DebConf to have this discussions hidden from > > the rest. > > I agree with you that we don't want cabals and secrecy. However, we > should also make sure that we're ready for this, that is that having > possibly endless public discussions does not prevent people in > charge from making decisions in a timely manner. When there is a private channel for discussion, it is normal to assume that plenty of things are happening behind the curtains. Anyways, most of the discussion on the alias is about easy tasks, like drafting the CfP, deciding on the time-slots, and all the related activities that are part of the team responsibilities mentioned on the wiki[1] [1]https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Teams/Content IMHO, besides the already known need to decide on talks, right now there are some other points for keeping the alias not public: 1) Inviting speakers; We don't want to argue publicly who of the proposal speakers will be on-budget/topic, for me is just about being polite, we can not talk about "John Doe" on a channel that later on will be indexed on search engines and with a public web archive. 2) Reaching a quick consensus; I agree that this is quite hard but having more opinions on small subjects will create only more `meta-discussion', I know it sounds a bit cabalish, but once one consensus on the topic is reached, we always move the discussion to -team, having a wider audience for discussion on that regards. That saids, having two channels to discussion probably make a bit of sense, but you can not assure that the private alias will not be used out of scope(i.e: debian-private). If you want to give it a try to this open model, is ok, but pretty please, try to do this after DC15, we may need to think a little bit on it, probably also hear what DC16 local team, next-content team and chairs have to said about this. Cheers -- René
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature