[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team

>>>>> "Paulo" == Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana <phls@debian.org> writes:

    >> To emphasize: the committee's role is not to be the debconf team.
    >> Committee members may be active members of the debconf team, and
    >> certainly we need at least one or two who are very active in
    >> debconf-team.

    Paulo> I already expressed this opinion before, but I really believe
    Paulo> all 5 Committee members must be part of debconf orga helping
    Paulo> in at least one of the teams. Specially when some teams need
    Paulo> help because of lack of people, for instance, sponsors team.

I think there's a lot of value in having a team of advisors and last
resort decision makers without  requiring those people to be active in
the current orga.
Both models are possible.
I'm aware of a number of science fiction conventions for example where
the ultimate decision making body is composed of the heads of the sub

However, specifically because we want to preserve some institutional
memory as we move city to city, I think that requiring DCC members to be
actively involved in orga is something I would not support.  I think it
also gets in the way of increasing diversity, and having a moderating
influence if there's a lot of stress.

I'd caution you to think about how you prioritize some conflicting
Which do you want more: a healthy active debconf-team, or the DCC to be
involved in that team.

Focusing on requiring the DCC to be actively involved would be the sort
of thing I'd expect if they were making decisions that made no sense or
that didn't work for people on the ground.  Pushing the DCC to become
actively involved will not get you a bigger debconf-team with any

Reply to: