Re: Intent to Delegate: Delegation Advisory Group
>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Norbert> Hi Sam, I think this is a good idea, but ...
Norbert> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> * Joerg Jaspert <email@example.com> * Steve McIntyre
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Theodore Y. Ts'o <email@example.com> * Enrico
>> Zini <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Norbert> I consider this list too strong an aggregation of duties
Norbert> and powers - most of them are already in core positions in
Norbert> Aren't there any other DDs you can trust?
Unsurprisingly (given that it's the entire reason this all started) I'm
unwilling to comment on the delegates I didn't pick.
I do think we can talk about the strengths of the team I'm proposing and
about whether that meets the project's needs.
To your specific concern, I asked Ted to serve exactly because he's not
in a core Debian position beyond maintaining packages we all use.
I think that's a valuable point of view to get here.
Ted also has management experience that is valuable in these situations.
I asked Enrico and Joerg to serve because through DAM they have already
demonstrated important qualities. They are able to think about disputes
and make hard decisions when necessary. But they display compassion,
are not too quick to act, and care about stability of the project.
Enrico is also one of the people I most turn to within Debian when
looking for advice on compassionate empathetic communication, diversity,
ane, and promoting underrepresented groups.
I asked Steve to serve because he is very much a Debian insider. He has
a long history of the personalities and politics involved. He's also
good at leadership and has consistently given me good advice so far.
I think this team is a reasonable choice for the task description.
If others think that there need to be more members who are not involved
in core functions, then we can discuss that. I'd need:
* People I've worked with and trust to think about people issues.
* People who are reasonably responsive to email
* People who understand the difference between "this is a reasonable
choice," and "this is the choice I would have made."