Re: [Debconf-team] Deadline (Re: Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation)
Am 20.10.2015 um 06:32 schrieb Eric Dantan Rzewnicki:
It's impossible for me to have extended a deadline that had not yet been
announced. I don't consider it appropriate for the drafters to set a
deadline nor for me to do so.
[discussion about SMTP on Debian.org]
2015-10-18 20:37 <DLange> BTW (completely unrelated) ... There is a
draft for a new DebConf delegation from the DPL in the works at
https://titanpad.com/DC16-draft-delegation-proposal . I'll post to the
ML tomorrow but if you have some time now, please review and change,
amend or comment
[...]
2015-10-19 14:19 <edrz> it hasn't been discussed outside the titanpad.
2015-10-19 14:21 <DLange> right. Hence I put it there yesterday as I
planned to (and still plan) to send the announcement email today.
2015-10-19 14:21 <DLange> It will (hopefully) be discussed in *future*
team meetings etc.
2015-10-19 14:21 <edrz> 2 weeks is not long enough for people who
weren't invited to participate previously to come up with an alternative
proposal.
2015-10-19 14:21 <edrz> this document is already 10 days old.
2015-10-19 14:21 <DLange> well, then change it to four week
2015-10-19 14:22 <DLange> I could care less as long as we have any
deadline and stop the discussion at some pre-defined time so we have a
chance to get somewhere
2015-10-19 14:22 <DLange> (and not revolve endlessly)
2015-10-19 14:23 <edrz> on that I agree.
2015-10-19 14:23 <DLange> again, if you want three or four weeks please
just change the Titanpad and leave a comment too, if you want to. All
fine for me.
2015-10-19 14:23 <edrz> done
Before that it is impossible to tell how long this has been in the
works. An undisclosed group have been corresponding in private about
this draft for at least 12 days _and_ proposed to give anyone they
excluded only 2 weeks to respond, contribute or create a counter
proposal. You have given yourselves an unfair head start on anyone who
might disagree with you.
You complain for the sake of complaining.
There is no fair or unfair here. I'm fine with any delegation proposal
that prevents the inherent organizational issues we have seen during the
chairs' time.
These issues were discussed at length during DC15. And I'd like to say
again: These are completely unrelated to the people that had the tough
job of being a chair.
So for me the analysis of the past is over and I organized a call to
action (as nobody else did) to come up with a better proposal. Which is
what you received now.
I personally chose to not start discussions with a group as large as
DebConf in the void but ask people I have discussed with before (so not
you) to braindump and come up with proposals.
You may have chosen differently but then you may be enjoying meta
discussions, I do not.
(more to come in separate mails about transparancy and the actual
substance of the draft(s))
Please don't hijack the thread with another meta discussion.
I'm looking forward to any contribution that improve the proposals.
Daniel
Reply to: