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

Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board

On 2/12/07, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:

Hi Raphael,

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
> > Feel free to comment, ask questions and give suggestions on how to
> > enhance it.
> Could you provide a bit more context about which problems this would
> solve, and why you think it's necessary?

It tries to give:
- more momentum to the leadership: clearly a single leader is swamped with
  administrivia and even the addition of a 2IC didn't let Anthony finish
  his first proposal (about giving single-package upload rights to some
  people which don't want to become full DD but want to maintain just one
  or two packages)

Could you elaborate about the administrivia comment?

- better decision taking: when you have a big discussion, it's difficult to take a
  decison alone, you take the sole responsibility of it... whereas when
  you're 10 which are deciding, it's easier to assume the outcome.

Which kind of decision? Technical? There's the technical committee. I
think a DPL board wouldn't help solve our social issues, so you're
trying to replace my tech-ctte elected proposal to a DPL board elected
proposal, that makes no sense IMHO.

- better respect of the leadership: if you don't like the leader, it's
  easy to dismiss any of its decision, but if you have 6 people in the
  board that you respect and 4 that you don't trust too much, you're more
  likely to accept the outcome of a given decision.

I agree.

It's also a form of leadership that fits better our own internal workings.
If a board member goes MIA, we still have 9 others who are there.

We've group examples that actually work this way and others that
simple don't work if one board member is MIA. That's all about how
much work from others one of the members can block.

I really prefer to see a tech ctte elected and more active, and only
one DPL preferably with a 2IC.

-- stratus

Reply to: