Re: Ignoring the truth or Hiding problems?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:29:20PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | Therefore I recommend to broaden the control of who controls the universe
> | and to ensure that not the same people have the control over and over again.
> | - People in role positions should be exchanged/elected at a regular basis.
> Why? Why should I care who the buildd admin is?
Because you have a problem with your package being built, maybe?
> They do their work,
> usually well and I have _no way_ to know why I should elect A before B
> as the $RANDOM_ARCH (say, powerpc) buildd admin. In fact, I have no
> idea why the powerpc buildd admin is.
Why do you have no way to choose B over A? That's something you usually do
in every election, be it Debian related or not. When you don't care, you
don't need to elect at all.
> | - no person should hold more than 2 positions at the same time
> | - a person should only be able to hold the position for 2 times in a row at
> | maximum.
> | - whenever possible there should be a team to fulfill a position. Team
> | members should be exchanged at a regular basis.
> |
> | These ideas are not my own, but were formed when discussing the problems
> | with other DDs, who I expect to make a proper proposal for a change in
> | Debian when Sarge has been released - finally. It's more than overdue and
> | after that the problems really need to be addressed and solved.
> You're not a DD, unlike what your sentence ?.. with other DDs?
> implies.
Aha... and because I'm not a DD I'm not allowed to think about Debian and
discuss the situation with other DD's?
I'm not a politician, but I discuss political issues with friends regardless
being just a normal human being. Or are just politicians allowed to discuss
political things?
> Your other ideas about time-limiting positions is wrong. I am not
> able to name a single person in Debian I'd rather have as DAM than
> James.
That's fine for you when you have great trust with him. Other people might
think different and there's nothing wrong with that.
> He might have much to do and be slow in his duties, but what's
> more important is the trust he has. The other people who might have
> the same level of trust usually don't want to become DAM.
The DAM is one of the most criticized persons within Debian. I don't see any
point why it has to be just one person and not a well-working team?
> The limitation you're proposing would imply that for instance Bdale
> would have to stop being a porter for ia64, hppa or a member of the
> CTTE.
Correct me when I'm wrong, but being a porter is not a role position in
Debian but just something you call a person when that person does a lot of
work for that arch. So, there's only the membership of CTTE left over.
That's just one job and therefore ok.
> Yeah, and Josip Rodin would have to stop being a policy editor,
> a member of the www-team, part of the mirrors group, part of the doc
> team, the bts team and the listmaster/listarchives group.
Policy editor might be considered a role position as well as www-team and
mirror-team, bts-team and listmaster-team. I wouldn't consider the doc team
a role position, though.
> And Martin
> Michlmayr being DPL, one of the people behind the partner program, NM
> front desk and key signing coordinator.
Member of front-desk is part of the DPL work, isn't it? So, that would just
could as one job.
What should be considered a role position should be eloborated, of course.
> All those taken from /intro/organization and intended to show that we
> have people who help out a lot while holding more than two positions
> and it works just fine.
"Works just fine" is a little bit exaggerated, IMHO. When you follow the
lists, you'd notice that there's a problem from time to time with some
positions in Debian, most likely due to too much workload on those persons.
The basic idea behind the proposed ideas is to ensure that there will be
more people over the time that are qualified of taking over the job.
New members of a role position should be introduced by the old, leaving
member during a time period where both persons are handling the issue. The
old one can assist the new one and teach him or her how to deal with known
problems.
The leaving member will gain more time for other activities, f.e. his other
role positions in Debian. I don't see the point what's bad with this?
Maybe there needs some changes, more elaboration and some tweaks, but the
basic idea is correct, IMHO.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: