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

Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > I don't expect all board members to be interested in all issues. So I
> > believe we need around that number of people in a board to have always 4-5
> > active people on a given topic/issue.
> But isn't this a contrdiction? Shouldn't people running for board
> membership be interested on all topics related to Debian? I do agree
> that everyone has his/her own priorities, but being a board member means
> you have to at least show anough interest that cou can participate in a
> vote.

Yes they do. Yet you know that we're all volunteers and that it can't work
as it should. People go on vacation, are too busy to reply, need to take a
break because they are pissed off, etc.

> The problem is that the length of a discussions tends to be proportional
> to the size of the group or even worse, while the decisions making gets
> harder if the group increases.

Indeed. A dozen is still way more manageable than 1000.

> > Despite what can be seen, we don't have that many issues that are causing
> > disagreement, but here are some where I'd like to have people who
> > argued in both directions:
> > - firmware are acceptable / they're not
> > - trademarks are covered by the DFSG / they're not
> > - ftpmaster need to be more transparent / they're doing OK
> > - dunc-tank is bad / dunc-tank is OK
> Now that will be interesting. You choose the members so you have all
> sides on OLD discussions? How do you make sure you get all sides for new
> upcoming discussions? If you don't, this approach doesn't look like a
> good idea to me.

Except for firmware, where we're starting to have some good guidelines on
what's accepted by Debian, I'm not sure that those discussions are
completely part of the past.

And even if they were, the set of 10 people allow for a good probability
that you'll find various opinions when they have an history to already
have been in disagreement on other topics in the past.

> I do agree that we eventually should elect all members. But I would go
> one step further and give every one of these positions a special
> resposibility, e.g. community relations, marketing, internal
> organisation, ... and let them elect their chairman themselves. 

Interesting idea. I like the principle but I'm not sure that you'll have
many candidates for "internal organisation" when it's so more fun to
work on "public relation". But this needs to be thought further, it could
be an interesting base.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: