Re: [Debconf-team] [Protest] Changes should come from within the team and not from above
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@debian.org> wrote:
>> The mail says that it's a request for comments, but the changes were
>> already made in the wiki, which is a dissonance with requesting
>> comments.
> A wiki is a wiki. We request comments from all people.
When you already edited the wiki, it's up to people to point out
things that they want changed and put a lot of energy into getting
them, instead of allowing people to express their opinions freely.
> BTW you just wrote us that you wanted to be consulted before going public.
I very much prefer an open discussion. But if you are not going to
have it, then I would at least expect that you to consult with those
that did most of the words for the DebConf that has just finished.
> Most of the changes were agreed with the orga sprint (e.g. video team).
Video Team, yes.
Changing composition of Coordination team, no.
Putting "Social events" as a main level team, no.
Changing who does the bid selection, no.
Ditching the concept of local team, no.
For the last one, I'd really like to hear DC16 explain their point of
view, as I currently don't understand their reasons, and having the
chairs relay this is not helpful. I asked for this yesterday, but I
guess they are away.
> BTW you are still in coordination team, and team will be formed when dc16 people return from vacations (7 September I think). We are not removing you from coordination.
"Different composition for coordination team: key local organizers,
the DebConf Chairs, and possibly members of past years coordination"
*possibly* members of past years coordination. Who decides if this is
the case or not? Where does the possibility originate?
> Where is your name missing? Since when?
It's not my name, but the possibility of belonging being completely
ambiguous and unclear and apparently being up to the chairs to decide
if that's the case or not.
> For sure DC16 people were consulted. And we had a orga sprint.
> What is the change you don’t like and you feel it was not discussed?
All of the above that say no. In the orga sprint we shared a lot of
ideas, but we reached practically no conclusions. Using the orga
sprint as an excuse to now present a proposal full of things that were
not even discussed there doesn't really work.
>> I don't think this is how we should operate. What do the rest of the
>> people that were planning on keeping participating on debconf-team
>> think?
> Propose an alternative.
As I said, I was actually going to propose a series of IRC meetings to
work on the many problematic points. I'm not sure if I'm even
empowered to do that now that I possibly may belong to the
coordination team... or not.
> We are open to proposals, and we are not removing you from coordination (but you resigned several times, and communicated to us that for you it is not a problem if we will not “renew” your role, so we didn’t anticipate your reaction).
It's not a problem if someone else is willing to lead coordination
team, I really sincerely have no problem with that. I do have
problems with you communicating to me that I'm dismissed in a public
mailing list post instead of privately, in advance.
Imagine if tomorrow the DPL would send a mail to d-d-a saying that the
chairs are replaced by foo, bar, baz, and you learn about it from the
mail. Would you be happy about that? Even if you had been thinking of
quitting before, you would certainly prefer to know of this in advance
and have your concerns heard before it's publicly announce, wouldn't
you?
That's how I feel about your mail.
--
Regards,
Marga
Reply to: