Re: [Debconf-team] Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation

[Daniel Lange <dl.ml1@usrlocal.de>]

Am 20.10.2015 um 16:46 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:

On 20/10/15 at 15:55 +0200, Daniel Lange wrote:

I'm a big fan of fair and free elections (as you probably saw when I asked people to vote for T-Shirt colors :)). But that is a personal preference. I'm not sure such negotiations will not get people even more upset than the fact that I (and others) reserve the right to talk privately even about DebConf matters and not do everything we ever do on mailing lists.

I think that I have two different issues with that point. One is the one
to which you replied, that is, the fact that the current suggestion is
to use an election, which always have a feeling of personification and
popularity contest that I'm not a big fan of.

That is very true.
I'm no fan of that either but then I have found no better way to have everybody have a say and - whatever the outcome - motivate acceptance of a majority decision at some point in time.
You see that opening up discussions again and again after decisions have been taken has been the worst element of disorganization in DebConf. So we need to find a way to move beyond that.
Elections (as in guaranteed participation and democratic legitimacy) can be a way forward. But there may be others.

But my main objection is that I don't think that it should be the DebConf
team members' responsibility to select who is going to control/supervise
them. If the Debian project thinks there's a need for a group of people
in charge of supervising the team organizing its conference, then the
Debian project (possibly through the DPL) should be choosing the
supervisors, not the team. (Of course, it makes a lot of sense to
involve the DebConf team in the discussion about possible chairs, but
that's not the same thing)

That is a very good point.
The proposal I basically is:

• Structure of delegation set by DPL (but the current DPL kindly allows us to make a proposal)
• Initial delegates named by DPL (for the sake of speed and to make sure DC16 is well supported)
• Successors elections through DebConf team after initial terms end (with a one year overlap to keep things somewhat smooth in case new people are elected)
  
• Right to cancel or change delegation with DPL regardless (non obstante veredicto so to say)

You make good arguments for the delegation to be more "autocratic". I could well live with this (as I have lived with it through DC15).

The partial lack of acceptance already present when I joined the team and the perceived legitimacy issues of the chair system have led me to support the above though.

The underlying question is: Which degree of autonomy in governance (if any) should DebConf have two-three years down the line?

Your arguments are very valid and (in case the DebConf plebs were to keep asking for a electoral approach in ~four weeks) it is ultimately for the DPL (probably with your consultation) to decide. I'm sure weighing the pro and contra will lead to a wiser decision.