On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 03:33:57PM +1300, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Patty Langasek <harmoney@dodds.net> [2015-11-12 13:32 +1300]: > > Incorrect. 2 of the 3 original delegates ended up losing time for > > various reasons, the last remaining delegate remained active. More > > delegates were added, and became active right around when things > > were "heating up" so to speak, and were involved in a lot of > > discussions on the ground. > That was not my impression at all, but there's little point in > arguing over this. > You might want to talk to Steve who had very strong feelings about > the delegation at the time that more delegates were added, rather > than the delegation itself revisited. Yes, strong opinions because the delegation resulted in *insufficient* executive power for the delegates. Prior to the previous delegates resigning, it was not uncommon for necessary decisions to stall because the chairs lacked either consensus or quorum. When two of the delegates had resigned and there was only one remaining chair, decision-making proceeded more swiftly - which is of the essence when organizing a conference with real-world deadlines. Turning around and reappointing three chairs under the original delegation reintroduced the possibility of the same failure modes as before. In practice this was never a problem during DebConf14 organization. It was still a weakness of that /particular/ delegation structure. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature