Re: [Debconf-team] On the "local team"
On 28/09/15 12:46, martin f krafft wrote:
> This is not to say that everything about the teams structure is bad,
> nor that "institutional memory, clear responsibilities, and
> boundaries" aren't necessary. But that there are learnings of the
> past 12 months that need to be considered, and two of those are:
>
> - embracing the local team
> - ensuring people can use their time to do work towards the
> conference organisation, rather than losing their energy trying
> to figure out how to start
Like I said in my previous email, I don't see how this is suppposed to
happen.
> Please be reminded that we all went along and supported the teams
> structure installation for the first 6 months, even though it really
> hurt us to have to wait months for the teams to be formed before we
> could resume work on DebConf, and we some of us disagreed with
> aspects of your proposal.
That is certainly not the way I remember things happening. You had to
wait for people to do work, yes, but it was not really the teams
formation what delayed much anything, but people taking more time that
you considered was needed, while at the same time not being allowed to
overstep their area of responsibility.
We can all agree that some teams missed their deadlines or were not
particularly responsive, yes. But the issues came when instead of
pushing through the coordination team for them to wake up, people tried
to just override other people. Or when deadlines were pushed to teams
without sensible justifications, or agreement.
If we are going to conclude that this did not work, I would like to hear
more concrete evaluations of the problems.
> But when the teams were finally defined and memberships canvassed,
> it didn't work out as expected. Some teams remained leaderless,
> others had leaders and shadows who didn't participate, and the were
> countless open questions about competencies and roles that nobody
> ever addressed.
Which team remained leaderless? Apart from the one that was not formed,
and the local team took its place.
Can you also point out which leaders did not participate?
I don't know which open questions about competences remain open.. This
has been documented, and explained many times in different media. Can
you elaborate?
--
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
Reply to: