Re: [Debconf-team] Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation
Am 20.10.2015 um 08:49 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> https://titanpad.com/DC16-draft-delegation-proposal
So, the way I understand it, this proposal does three things:
1) explicitely restrict the decisions which the chairs can interact
with. I understand that the goal here is to avoid chairs that will
nitpick about each and every decision. I'm a bit concerned that the
current list does not cover all the opportunities for causing serious
harm to DebConf organization.
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).
I'm not sure where the root cause of this issue came from either.
It is always a bit hard to separate the organizational issues from those
that stem from inter-personal relationships or the erosion of these.
There are good ideas in your proposal. We can either try to come up with
a definitive list of responsibilities or action triggers (that's what I
tried) or a good policy on when and how to call for action or exercise
the delegation's powers (and clearly prevent micro-management).
Both will probably work if we can come up with a good wording for
either. I think overriding individual decisions is not that great of an
idea.
I remember in DC15 both sides complained about a bit of a cat-and-mouse
game at times. Obviously always blaming the other party :).
So it must be a second-to-last resort measure. The last-resort measure
being removing the DCxx project leader or other project role (like, say
the accountant).
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)
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.
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:
- will that really help in improving the DebConf bid selection process?
It would. As it would make decisions timing predictable. But as with all
these proposals, I'm all happy for better ideas to be brought forward.
It should be either something we can do for DC17 or we need a bit longer
to sort it out (e.g. the DebConf technical committee like idea in
Proposal II) ... then we may need a plan for DC17 and then one for DC18+
decisions.
- 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.
I'd personally say a big YES to this question. Just because I find other
working models than classic project setups much harder to get to work well.
I like them (it's my day job to organize people, so I like to see things
out of the ordinary to keep me from getting bored) but it's much harder
to do well. Esp. within volunteer organizations where "simple" is often
"best".
We could leave that one for DCxx to decide ... we just may have the
Continuity role explain in the process what worked and what didn't work
in the past. That may be enough to get people to consider not
re-inventing organizational structures just because they can (and then
find out again that it's hard to get better than a boring but functional
project organization).
Just my 2cts, feel free to ignore and think "Gosh, it's good he isn't
the DPL anymore :-)"
Au contraire, very welcome!
Kind regards,
Daniel
Reply to: