Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Thu, December 5, 2013 11:46, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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.
These arguments are all inherently bureaucratic in nature (monitoring,
defining responsibilities). That's not bad per se, if it can be justified
that this form of monitoring or formal responsibility determination
actually solved concrete issues. Since you skipped my request for concrete
examples, I'm assuming you also haven't seen such cases :)
I find it more likely that "monitoring" in the sense that people perceive
trouble when interacting with a team is much more indicative of a problem
than "monitoring" through the process of updating delegations.
I'm not convinced that the work done on all these delegations is a net win.
>> 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
I'd rather not say for fear of more busywork ;-)