Re: [Debconf-team] Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:49:31AM +0200]:
> (...)
> The wording of this in the current delegation is:
> When necessary, e.g. when the DebConf team's inability to make a
> decision has an major impact on DebConf organization, or when a
> decision taken by the DebConf team is perceived by the DebConf chairs
> as creating serious risks for the organization of DebConf or for
> Debian, the DebConf chairs can override specific decisions.
> I'm still not sure whether the problems arose from the scope of this
> wording, or from an inability from chairs and the DebConf team to work
> within this wording. I wonder if what's missing isn't a stricter process
> for chairs to communicate that they are making a statement as chairs.
> Really, I think that the technical committee sets a good example here
> (about how to restrict the discussion about a specific question, how to
> make a clear decision, and how to communicate it).
Thing is, when we talk about this kind of decisions, it's basically
impossible to be precise. I do believe that, if there is a delegated
set of individuals, they should be able to "ensure sanity". We have
had many seemingly good ideas by motivated (but not necesarily
experienced) local teams that have been stopped by our diverse
incarnations of global leads; sometimes, lots of time might have been
saved had the Mighty Chairs (or whatever their name) were to have a
veto power. And yes, I like your parallel about T-C — a veto power is
something not to be abused.
> 2) move the chairs selection process from designation by the DPL to
> election by the DebConf team. Given that the chairs are supposed to
> protect the Debian Project from serious issues with DebConf
> organization, I find it backward that the DebConf team is able to
> self-select the controllers. Of course it's obvious that the DebConf
> team should have a say about possible chairs (to ensure that they are
> fine with working with the chairs), but I think that an election goes to
> far. I wonder if a suitable result could not be achieved with a
> negociation between the team and the DPL about possible chairs for a
> specific edition of DebConf. (The important change here would be that
> chairs would be nominated for a specific edition of DebConf, which makes
> it possible to choose them based on the ability to work with specific
> organizers)
...Although positions can be defined and later validated, AIUI with
our current constitution and structure, the easiest way to handle what
we currently call a delegation is, precisely, with a delegation (yay
for tautology!)
That is, if we do value democracy over all, the team can suggest a
list of chairs/whatevers, and the DPL would basically ratify it by
delegating. I think it can be a sane procedure.
Up to now, this has been discussed somehow in the shadow. When Holger,
Moray and me were chosen as the first chairs, it was because we were
prominently the visible longstanding orgas — but I don't recall having
a formal, visible discussion on who (or how) would this be. For Tássia
and Tincho replacing Holger and me, we were (all orgas) requested
input, but the decision was not taken visibly; I guess the DPL and the
lone-standing chair discussed on the profiles, but cannot know. Same
goes for Cate.
But OTOH... Discussions on who becomes part of each delegated team is
not usually done in the open, and there might be important reasons for
it. For one, I believe (even having stated in the past I was clearly
affiliated with the Nicaraguan team) the Chairs need *not* to be too
strongly affiliated with the current-local team. Partly, yes, this
will help decisions to be visible online; too many decisions taken
locally will in some way alienate people living far from the
organizing country.
> 3) The proposed delegation also increases the power of the chairs by
> putting them in charge on selecting the location of the next DebConf (if
> I get this right -- I'm not sure of how to read "decide on the team
> awarded the right to conduct the N+1 DebConf"), and in charge of
> selection a "DebConfXX project leader". I'm not sure that this is
> necessary:
I'm not quite happy with our current "DebConf Committee"
arrangement. This committee that exists solely to choose the next
bid. There is quite a bit that can be fixed here; I don't think
restricting the decision to three (two? whatever we come up with)
people is positive, though. I appreciate having a larger body of
people weighing options. Again, I am not a fan of our current
arrangement, but IMO we should strive to hold the decision among ~10
people, to ensure viewpoint diversity.
> - do we really want to force each and every DebConf to explicitely
> have a project leader? I think that different organization models can
> work here, and I would prefer the team to decide on a organization
> model that suits them, as long as it works.
No, please don't!
> Just my 2cts, feel free to ignore and think "Gosh, it's good he isn't
> the DPL anymore :-)"
But he's an interested person with good insight on the inner workings
of our project and a panorama view. So it helps a lot. I'm glad you
are in the loop.
Reply to: