On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:09:57AM +1300, martin f krafft wrote: > 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". Technically true. What the delegates are actually there to ensure is that Debian resources are not misused to put on a *failed* conference - by facilitating a successful conference if possible, and to pull Debian's support for the conference if not. > We've had problems in the past and we'll have problems in the > future, which no delegation can prevent or mitigate. Categorically false. > > 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. It's not just about a bad DebConf "reflecting negatively" on Debian. It's also about DebConf being the single largest expenditure of project funds each year (if you are calling it the annual Debian Conference and soliciting funds, those are all *Debian's* funds being spent to put on the conference), and the fact that whoever is planning the spending of those funds needs to be directly accountable to the project. > 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. If you want to solicit sponsorship for organizing a mini conference to work on Debian stuff, that's ok, as long as you're not misrepresenting it as being on behalf of the Debian project. If you want to solicit sponsorship for a conference and call it the annual Debian Conference, but the Debian Project does not have control over how that money is spent, that's *fraud* - even if the conference is not a "failure". > 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. I don't have a strong opinion on the structuring of the delegation, but I don't think this makes sense as part of the trademark team which is charged with policing how third-party entities use the Debian trademarks. The overlap between those duties, and the responsibilities involved in providing oversight for DebConf, is negligible. > 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! No. Debian's single largest annual line item expenditure is not an excuse for cross-pollination of organization models. This constant organizational revolution is a huge waste of energy, and one of the big reasons the DebConf team has had such a hard time making improvements that require multi-year planning or work. It sets the stage for DebConf returning to the bad old days of rolling from crisis to crisis for 6 months of the year. > 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. "Being answerable to the delegates" does not imply "being at the bottom of a complex heirarchy". I had no problem working with the chairs for DC14. I think if you find having to answer to delegates demotivating, that says a lot more about you than it does about the appropriateness of a delegate 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