also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> [2015-10-22 08:18 +1300]:
> > I don't have my tongue in my cheek here at all, but have we ever
> > stepped back and answered the question what threats could put the
> > Debian Project at jeopardy which couldn't have been prevented
> > through a functioning team even without sledgehammer powers?
>
> You've twisted my words a bit here.
That was unintentional, sorry.
> Debian should protect itself from serious issues with DebConf
> organization, not only because some of those issues could maybe
> put the Debian project at jeopardy (even if it's a bit hard to
> imagine), but also because it's extremely important to continue to
> have successful DebConfs.
So these are two issues, but I don't think a delegation will help
with the second: you cannot delegate the obligation to run
a successful DebConf. In the end, it's a team that puts it on, and
I don't see delegates facilitating that.
And this is mainly because volunteer delegates are mostly there to
exercise veto power, but DebConf does not get organised through
vetos.
> Of course, a functioning team could avoid most issues, but I think
> that we want to keep the possibility to have bids led by people
> who have relatively little DebConf or even Debian experience. By
> providing a safety net, chairs are a compromise that make it
> easier, less risky, to have such inexperienced (and more likely to
> be malfunctioning) bid teams.
I understand the motivation and I agree that we need to enable bid
teams with less experience to put on great conferences, but this
requires a dedicated team, forward-thinking, and good mentoring.
I don't see how a delegation provides a safety net.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16
DebConf17 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)