major Changes to the TC?

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Tollef" == Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:

    Tollef> As for Zack's point about this process being underway
    Tollef> already: yes, that's the point.  If we want to change things
    Tollef> about the TC, let's put out a comprehensive proposal instead
    Tollef> of changing one thing now and another thing in six or twelve
    Tollef> months.


hi.  First, I have a conflict of interest here in that I've thrown my
name into the hat as a potential TC member.  Having disclosed that
conflict, I don't think it's serious enough to preclude me participating
in the discussion.

Secondly, I'm not responding to Clint's proposal to remove the TC.  If
you're convinced that the TC doesn't have value, then now probably is
the time to remove it before people spend time trying to figure out how
to approach a significant chunk of feedback we've received.

I want to be very careful about change, particularly change that
requires a high bar (constitutional amendments qualify) to implement.

The main reason is that I think we're better at refining process, better
at trying incremental improvement than we are at predicting the impact
and value of major changes.

I think there's a lot of frustration with the TC process of late.  We've
seen several TC members (Russ, Don, Keith, perhaps more) express that
frustration.
We've seen several members of the project express frustration.

I've seen several people call for more of a consensus process, for more
trying to work together than for the kind of decision making we've seen
lately.
I've noticed these calls because they align well with how I think and
work.  It's probable that other directions have been suggested that I
didn't take as strong of notice of because they are less natural for me.


I think that revising how the TC works is something best done
incrementally with the TC working with the project.  I don't think we'll
be able to codify a new way of working quickly.  We might be able to
quickly write down *what we're trying today*, and have that be an easily
revised living document.  However the whole point will be able to try
things and adjust.

I'm concerned that how the TC functions could significantly impact what
selection procedure you want for a TC.  I don't think revising those
together in parallel will produce best results.  Also, I don't think
revising the selection procedure is likely to be a good way to achieve a
TC that works best with the project; I don't think we could easily
predict how the TC selection approach will impact style of interaction.
I don't for example think there's a tie between popular election winners
and good consensus builders as compared to appointed delegates.


So, yes, I do actually think we'll get better results if we change one
thing now and then later change a few things six months down the road.
So, I urge us to evolve not revolt.

Thanks for your consideration,

--Sam