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

Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?

On Tue Jan 13 17:39, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list
> of these "big issues" we have to discuss, and trying to give them
> "slots", as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO,
> having one or two (per-topic) people "responsible" for starting them,
> and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering
> and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too.

Certainly some coordination is good, but please try not to over-engineer
the thing (-:

> Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling:
>     * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and
>       Matthew Johnson express interest in this).
>     * changes to the Social Contract (I'm not sure if this one is going
>       to happen?).

These two I would suggest are two sides of the same coin. The changes to
the constitution are (mostly) ones about how binding the SC is, to whom
it is so binding and how to change or override it.

> Regarding the "Membership in Debian" discussion, this has always been my
> idea of what could work well:
>     * designing a person or very small group of people as the "drivers"
>       of the discussion; these people would have their opinion, of
>       course, but not an agenda, and should be trusted by the project,
>       and particularly by the people who feel vocal about this
>       discussion. .oO(good luck...)
>     * these drivers receive, in private, well-written "platforms" of
>       solutions that (many) interested people would give to the problem;
>       they read and dissect them, and work with the senders to present
>       to -project a fair summary of them, highlighting the points
>       where there's consensus, and the points where there is not.

This seems a lot of overhead to me. I was hoping that for most of these
things sensible discussion would be the way forward (but starting out
from a better point than last time). Also, it's probably worth
considering that for things like this a face to face at debconf may be
the best way to get a general approach sorted out.

I'm very interested in helping to get the membership and constitutional
stuff sorted, so please put me down / keep me in the loop for both.


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: