Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On 05/12/13 at 09:35 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Thu, December 5, 2013 02:15, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I would go further and say that I think it would be better to do
> > things differently. For a team which is functioning well, it would be
> > helpful if the DPL delegated to the team the authority over its own
> > composition, explicitly reserving the right to intervene. That way
> > there is no procedural problem: there is no question of someone de
> > facto making decisions which de jure they are not empowered to make,
> > or alternatively of having to have people wait for a rubber stamp from
> > the DPL before getting on with useful work.
> Perhaps it would make sense to first more clearly define problems we want
> to solve with the whole delegation process, so we then know what kind of
> process would best address that. I see that currently the process costs
> the DPL quite some time while at least to me it's unclear what problem it
> solves for the project. Can we point to a concrete issue in the past few
> years that we were able to address more efficiently because delegations
> were in place?
This was discussed in
Main points are:
* it facilitates the monitoring of the team manpower, which helps
taking proactive actions before things get too difficult.
* it provides a place to clearly define what are the roles,
responsibilities, powers of the team.
* it's a rather lightweight process when things work well. It's
bureaucratic, yes, but not so expensive bureaucracy.
> There are a number some teams active that perform tasks essential to
> Debian but are not delegated. Do we see more problems with those teams
> than with the delegated ones?
Which ones are you thinking about? (the release team is not delegated
yet, though this is a long running pending task, and there's a draft