also sprach Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2015-11-08 05:09 +1300]:
> The proper role of the chairs should be to ensure the functioning
> of the DebConf team and the success of the conference.
… neither of which can be "ensured".
We've had problems in the past and we'll have problems in the
future, which no delegation can prevent or mitigate.
> Without either a direct sign-off by the DPL or a delegation from
> the DPL, no one involved in DebConf organization has any authority
> to use Debian's name to solicit sponsorship.
Sometimes it feels to me that the danger of a bad DebConf reflecting
negatively on Debian is one of the two pivotal points in this entire
debate.
Nobody has a problem with people organising conferences to further
Debian in any way (cf. MiniDebconfs and other events). In fact, we
count on it being done by volunteers of their own initiative, or
else we'd need a bureau and staff.
As long as such events don't interfere with the Debian project (e.g.
concerted fundraising efforts, which don't yet exist) or tarnish the
brand(s), there is no reason why people shouldn't be soliciting
funds towards the organisation of such events.
We already have a team/delegation in charge of use of the Debian
brand, especially in situations where money is involved. It could
already be considered part of the trademark team delegation to
oversee DebConf fundraising and ensure that we don't make promises
we can't keep, and that budgeting/treasury stays true to DebConf
values.¹ A parallel delegation will only bring additional work,
confusion and friction.
Within the constraints overseen by those in charge of the Debian
brand, we should let the DebConf team work any way they want, and be
open to the idea that e.g. a South-African-led team will approach
orga differently than a team led by Germans. There's great potential
for cultural exchange here!
Only when there are problems, *then* we need clear structures
already in place and respected throughout that can resolve these in
favour of DebConf and the reputation of the Debian brand. Let's not
try to "ensure" that no problems appear through bureaucracy and
authoritarian structures.
¹) The exact definition of these DebConf values and their relative
priorities is the other pivotal point of our debate, IMHO. But
I don't see us far off an agreement here.
> For the past few years, we've fared well with strong,
> well-organized local teams that pose little risk to the Debian
> Project. This has not always been the case. The organizational
> structure of the DebConf team needs to handle the cases when we
> *don't* have a strong local team, not just the cases when we do.
We should do this without forcing a separation between the local
team and the rest. When we select a bid, we should be selecting
a team that we trust to stage the show.
This might mean building these teams before we pick them, especially
if we want to keep up changing locations as we've been doing. But
let's not expect there to be teams around the world that are happy
to scout out venues and otherwise slot in at the bottom of a complex
hierarchy. That's not very motivating at all.
The Cape Town bid is IMHO a good example of how things can work out:
The folks who came up with the idea of DebConf in South Africa
managed to attract at least four experienced DebConfers very early
on. Their own conference orga experience and dedication combined
with the DebConf knowledge brought to the table through the early
supporters resulted in a very convincing bid by a team that included
non-locals.
--
.''`. 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)