Hello Lucas, Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:45:43AM +0100]: > > Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not > > communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led > > us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously > > appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been > > delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is, > > once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning > > behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course- > > it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points > > will be made public. > > You kind-of make it sound like what you promise was not done by the > previous DC Committee. I'd like to point that details about the decision > process and the rationale were provided after the DC20 decision. Yes. I think I can promise that, because I think the situation to be different to what it was a year ago. And I know I'm getting ahead of things; I do not want in any way to put pressure on the rest of the DCC on this account — But I think we will decide by consensus, not by voting. And that we can share the reasoning we are following. > See the threads in > https://lists.debian.org/debconf-team/2019/03/threads.html > (...) I acknowledge the decision and communication of it was quite harder last year than what we are facing now. > On 18/02/20 at 23:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > ¹ The fact that one of the Committee members left it, and is quite > > vocal on his opposition to the choice made by it, makes it clear to > > me that, even if the Committee had intended to keep quiet, the truth > > will come out. I'm sure Jonathan can comment on the decision process > > as he lived it. We don't have NDAs. > > I must say that I'm a bit shocked by this paragraph. If I summarize: > - you are a member of the current DebConf Committee. > - you take the moral high ground and promise transparency, while the > transparency you promise is no better than the transparency of the > DC20 decision process > - you allude that the Committee that made the DC20 decision intends to > keep something quiet, and that there's a truth that needs to come out. > > Lucas > > (For context, I was a member of the Committee at the time of the DC20 > decision, and resigned on 2019-09-17, see > <20190917135320.GA29926@xanadu.blop.info>) FWIW, I was refering to the "other" Committee Member who left (and I named Jonathan in the paragraph you quote). I have talked with him, and know (at least, part of) his reasoning both for the vote and for the resignation. I didn't talk with you, so I didn't feel it fair to lump you together with him in "is quite vocal on his opposition" and "making it clear to me". No, I didn't target you with my aseveration. I am a current DebConf Committee member, as you state. I can try to offer as much transparency as needed; I truly hope we will not need to go to a flame _again_ to explain and understand the reasons for our decision. I don't say that DC20's decision was "intended to keep something quiet" nor that "there's a truth that needs to come out". I can only comment on what I saw as an close-but-still-outsider. I know that the DC20 decision crosses many personal issues, and that explaining it thoroughly will likely hurt. What I tried to say, and probably failed to communicate, is that I hope we show our next decision is *not* loaded with personal issues and sore feelings. Of course, not everybody will end up happy, but I think everybody will be able to understand and hopefully accept our decision as correct.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature