Re: Draft Delegation for the Community Team
Hi Sledge,
On 14/04/2020 16:03, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I hope you're keeping well in these difficult times... *hugs*
I am doing fine, thanks. I wish the same for you and your family!
>> It seems to me that this delegation text does not improve the
>> situation of the Community Team compared to the current non-delegated
>> team. I do not think it serves the actual needs of the project, nor
>> that it will help address the problems that have caused burnout and
>> high turnover rates.
>
> In the team we're happy enough with what's here. It's not seeking to
> redefine the role, but more to describe what we've already been doing
> and make it more official. Our own work to improve processes and grow
> the team should help to reduce the burnout problem.
I am not privy to the internal discussions that led to this, but from my
now external perspective, combined with my past experience, I see it as
a step backwards compared to what the team was aiming to be a couple of
years ago.
>> * In particular, Debian events are not required to do anything. This
>> can result in big events going ahead without any kind of support for
>> on-site conduct issues, as it was almost the case for DebConf19 (when
>> the CT noticed the omission just before DC started).
>
> A delegation for the CT can't *force* event organisers to do anything,
> but making us official should help to raise visibility. What else
> would you suggest?
No, but it could very well automatically give responsibilities to the
team for Debian-branded events, or could at least enunciate expectations
regarding this topic. Plus, it only mentions "concerns" as the role of
incident response teams, which sounds a bit like a complaints book on a
table.
>> * It mandates the team to coordinate responses, but my experience
>> shows that other teams -such as DAM or the DPL itself- do not always
>> collaborate when discussions get heated and coordination is most needed.
>>
>> How is the team going to make that coordination happen? How is it
>> going to prevent burning out people when they are left alone to face
>> the angry mob?
> Mainly by not leaving them alone. That's been a problem in the past,
> and it's a mistake we don't want to make again.
The problem is that I don't see that either in the letter or the spirit
of the text.
>> * At a first glance the people chosen do not seem to reflect the
>> diversity of our project, which is of tremendous importance when
>> dealing with cultural conflicts. The DPL has stressed repeatedly the
>> need to find "the right people for the job", but I am still curious
>> about the criteria.
>>
>> The less-than-transparent way personnel changes have been handled
>> lately, combined with this apparent lack of diversity in the team that
>> has been finally blessed by the DPL is not a great look, IMHO.
> Fundamentally, we have the team we have today; this specific
> delegation is for the 5 current full members, all volunteers. As you
> know from discussions we've had in the past, we care *very* much about
> diversity and we're going to continue to work on improving the team in
> that way. One previous member of the old A-H team is looking to rejoin
> us very shortly, and we have another new volunteer who is going
> through the onboarding process with us right now.
Oh, I don't doubt for a moment the good intentions of the team members!
I am sorry I did not word this properly, but please believe me that I
don't intend any part of this complaint to be directed at the members of
the team, specially when I have not interacted much with most of the
current memnbers.
My complaint is at the incoherence of statements made by the DPL about
personnel selection and the lack of transparency about the criteria.
>> In conclusion, I do not think this delegation is going to be effective
>> in helping the CT become a sustainable and useful vehicle to better
>> our community.
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
Hope it is useful and that results in improvements to the draft and our
processes.
Tina.
Reply to: