Re: Community Team - where we want to go
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 07:27:30 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Martina" == Martina Ferrari <tincho@debian.org> writes:
> Martina> The main conclusion from that is that yes, some of things
> Martina> expressed in the proposal require a delegation, I agree!
> Martina> Perhaps, the disconnection lies in reading that the team
> Martina> does not want to be delegated: quite the opposite, at least
> Martina> from my part! I had been in talks with the previous DPL
> Martina> about delegation since last year, but the burnout caused by
> Martina> the events around December and January delayed progress and
> Martina> then there was a DPL change, so we had to start from
> Martina> scratch and with considerably less support.
> I think the process we use is different depending on which direction
> we're going to go.
I agree as other people have voiced, that it should be made more clear
what are the things that are expected/desired to be part of a future
delegation, and what are the things that are going to be part of the
team operation while that is not the case yet.
> […] They drive the question of whether we have
> the right team description and whether we have the right people for the
> job.
Aha.
> So if the intent is to move toward delegation, say that as a team now,
> not later.
>
> Once you do that I'll be happy to work with you just as I would any
> other group approaching changing/renewing/creating a delegation.
This demand makes this interaction rather awkward, :/ given the
context this is in, and which we cannot discuss in here, and which
might require spelling out what I'll mention in the next paragraph,
which I think should have been no need to. :(
But then I see no reason at all why they need to do that now. Even though
they have already stated so, and the mail you reply to went as far as
mentioning a timetable of around 12 months, which TBH I pretty much
interpreted as a tactful way to say “once the current DPL term is over”.
Regards,
Guillem
Reply to: