Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
On 28/09/15 at 11:49 +0300, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> On 23/09/15 18:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > I haven't followed the current debate closely, so I won't comment on any
> > specifics, except:
> > On 23/09/15 at 13:15 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >> I think this is a symptom of a problem that is actually built into the
> >> current delegation.
> >>
> >> The delegation for the chairs only really provides one routinely usable
> >> power: The power to rearrange teams
> >
> > That is not part of the current delegation. What is in the delegation is
> > that the Chairs should "help the DebConf team define [...] a structure
> > (such as defining sub-teams and the responsibilities of different roles)
> > [...]." That's quite different.
>
> Yes. And it could be argued that we took a too executive role on this -I
> acknowledged this to you in person in DC15- by leading the workshops,
> compiling what we found to be a more-or-less consensus, and driving its
> implementation.
>
> But I think it also should be acknowledged that this is the first time
> that an actual attempt to solve the governance problems is put in place,
> and it was 100% triggered by requests from orga members. When I accepted
> the delegation, I had *no* intention of working so hard for so long on this.
FTR, I think that the DC14 workshops were clearly in line with the "help the
DebConf team define [...] a structure" power, i.e. that the Chairs were
helping, not forcing a structure down on the DebConf organizers. But now
I see that this might not be shared by everyone...
> >> The other (more exceptional) power that the chairs have to interfere
> >> with day-to-day affairs is also problematic: overriding decisions
> >>
> >> While this is only used rarely,
> >
> > Actually, the value of that power is that it exists. But I don't think
> > that it has ever been used.
>
> It has been used, in situations where we felt that important parts of
> DebConf were at risk: budgetary decisions, sponsors relationships,
> volunteers motivation, and even some basic tenets of the conference were
> at stake. Every time this happened, it was because somebody from the
> local team acted on their own, overstepping other people's
> responsibilities, and without prior consultation.
>
> I would like to ask fil or any of the people who think the chairs should
> not exist what would they do in situations like these.
Erm, the way I saw things when writing the delegation was that the
Chairs were a kind of "DebConf Technical Committee". If the Chairs
needed to override many decisions, there's clearly a problem, because
(for example, maybe, just making wild guesses) the DebConf organizers
have ignored the Chairs' advice, the Chairs have not been able to
provide convincing advice, the DebConf organizers have made many
conflictuous choices, or the Chairs have been intervening a bit too
much.
Maybe it would help to create a slightly more formal procedure for
overrides, so that it's clear that it's no longer just advice, and that
the Chairs agree on the need to override a specific decision?
Lucas
Reply to: