Re: Debian Cloud Team delegation updates
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 11:16:10AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I very much prefer a conversation along the line of "we have no choice,
> there's nobody else" rather than denying any possible conflict of
> interest. Even more, if we were to say: let's break the rule
> temporarily, until we have a better option, then I'd find it more
> acceptable.
Which is something that is addressed in part by Charles Plessey's
proposal of time-limited delegations. We force the DPL to actively
examine the situation and confirm the next set of delegates. Even if
it's a re-delegation of the same people, at least it was something that
was done intentionally.
> For the record, I would trust someone like Noah, because I've seen who
> he is, and trust him. But that's *not* what we're discussing here.
Thanks. Just for the record, nothing that I have said should be taken as
a self-nomination, regardless of current policies. ;) Trust, though, is
IMO far more important than a lack of a commercial interest in a
particular cloud related entity. I certainly don't think it would be
appropriate for the DPL to delegate somebody specifically *because*
they've got a relationship with a cloud company, but on the other hand I
don't think that an otherwise trusted and activity member of the team
should necessarily be excluded on those grounds either.
In any case, I think this horse is well beaten, and we give leave it in
peace. It'll be up to the DPL to decide what to do next. Does anybody
care to (self-)nominate? Or should we simply operate with fewer
delegates than is ideal? For their official duties, I'm not sure that
the workload is going to increase materially if we operate with only two
people, but I could be wrong. Would the current delegates like to
comment?
noah
Reply to: