also sprach Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net> [2015-10-21 09:16 +1300]:
> I'm good with that description from 2011. No idea how we ended up
> where we are today from that point, it was so sane and sensible.
IIRC: The 2011 delegation stems from efforts to help make DebConf
recognised as an official Debian event, hence integrating it into
the Debian chain-of-commands. You'd have to ask Zack for detailed
background.
Zack's delegation was succinct and wise. However, even though it
didn't give explicit decision-override or veto powers, it made three
people responsible towards the project, which had much the same
effect as giving them more weight in decisions than others.
Since then, we've seen a spectrum of problems, from the team unable
to make decision constantly deferring to the chairs and burning them
out, to there being a divide between chairs and some of the team,
bringing focus to the powers attributed by the more explicit
delegation put forth by Lucas.
The chairs have resigned, but things are fortunately moving along
smoothly *knock on wood*. If they weren't, we'd stall. The DPL might
be able to arbitrate an issue or two, but that wouldn't be
sustainable — dc-orga isn't something s/he can consistently make
good decisions about without getting much more closely involved.
In the past few weeks, Debian's CTTE has been quoted in the context
of dc-orga sundry times. The Debian Constitution explicitly gives
the CTTE arbitration powers, not the DPL.
Why should it be any different in DebConf?
(Except that DebConf decisions are hardly ever of technical nature…)
The second proposal in Daniel's mail¹ leaves the protection of the
Debian reputation in the hands of the trademark team, who wouldn't
need to clear every decision as long as what we're doing helps
Debian, and this should be the default assumption with a motivated
team.
A body similar to the CTTE ensures emergency decision-making, and
a checkpoint is put in place to ensure that the money we collect
from our sponsors towards DebConf is used to carefully to organise
a conference (a) in DebConf spirit and (b) fulfilling external
promises and contracts.
¹) https://titanpad.com/DC16-draft-delegation-proposal-alternative
One benefit of this proposal is that the only thing we need now is
to appoint the DC17 committee (which we have to do anyway). We can
otherwise fully focus on DC16, rather than more meta-orga
discussions.
Another benefit of the committee as proposed is that it's elected by
the team for every DebConf anew, rather than installed top-down by
the DPL, which is something many people took an issue with in the
past.
Having been elected for a given conference, the committee
furthermore has interests align, as they don't want to be called in
to arbitrate decisions all the time. Therefore, they'll be motivated
to try hard to decide on a proposal by a team they deem respectful
of Debian's reputation, and capable of working with the everyone
else towards the conference.
A respectful ambience in the team will mean that plenty people will
stick around to offer advice and oversight, without throwing new
people into bureaucratic swamps or getting too hung up in procedures
otherwise.
In closing, I think creating a new delegation or reinstating an
older one isn't going to make the problems go away that caused us to
get to where we currently stand. Instead of a top-down perspective
on DebConf orga, we should embrace a lean organisation, and trust
and enable people to help Debian through their work.
--
.''`. 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)