TL;DR: As Tina points out, this delegation does not accomplish
everything. It is an incremental step forward, one of many we've taken
this last year. Tina brings up a number of points where there might be
value in revising text if we get the support to do so. I welcome such
proposals for improvement both before and after the delegation is made.
I am not seeing blockers here--I think that the delegation is enough of
a step forward over the status quo. But I think that it is worth
continuing the process of incremental improvement even after the initial
delegation is made.
>>>>> "Martina" == Martina Ferrari <tina@debian.org> writes:
Martina> It seems to me that this delegation text does not improve
Martina> the situation of the Community Team compared to the current
Martina> non-delegated team. I do not think it serves the actual
Martina> needs of the project,
My understanding is that the DPL, Community Team, and Account Managers
all believe it will help the project for the Community Team to be
delegated.
Moreover, we had a fairly comprehensive discussion back last summer
after DebConf. Steve lead that discussion and solicited feedback from
the project on the CT's mission and what it would like to do.
The feedback from the project was that the project would like to see a
delegation for a number of the items in that mission.
My reading of that discussion is that there was broad support for a
delegated CT performing the mission that the CT proposed for itself.
There were a few other items where things got revised in response to
feedback.
But this delegation is very much a follow on to that earlier discussion.
The CT solicited feedback from the project. Later, after the CT grew a
bit, and honestly, after some circumstances allowed us to experience
first-hand why a CT is valuable, the DPL and CT got together to confirm
we'd taken that project feedback into account and move to the next step.
Martina> nor that it will help address the
Martina> problems that have caused burnout and high turnover rates.
I think there are two different approaches in play to adress burn-out
and high-turn over rates.
Steve talked to you about one of them: by having a larger team and by
working on some internal processes he hopes to reduce this.
In parallel, this delegation expresses the importance of the DPL and CT
working together on ongoing recruitment. I think it will be great if
Steve succeeds with his plan.
However looking at what I know of other organizations where I
understand how the CT/antiharassment processes work, high turnover is
inherent.
So, I think that recruiting may also be important.
Together I have confidence that these two approaches will help move us
forward.
Martina> * All of the activities of the CT seem subordinated to the
Martina> interest and willingness of other parties to work with them
Martina> and listen to their advice. No provision is made for when
Martina> this is not the case.
Ever since I've been tracking the CT, this has been the case. The first
etherpad you showed me about what the CT hoped it would do--back when I
was a trainee on the antiharassment team--contained language talking
about how the antiharassment team didn't have power to enforce
decisions.
That's consistent with the feedback the project was giving the AH team
on debian-private and debian-project back in 2019. It's possible that
before the events of December 2018, the antiharassment team had a
different vision. But certainly by the time I started to see that
vision--certainly well before I started to influence that decision
except as a individual project member, things were consistent with what
you quote above.
If the CT is not able to do what it needs to do because of a conflict
with another team, the CT can come to the DPL and/or the project, just
like anyone else.
It's absolutely true that dealing better with such conflicts is an area
where Debian could improve overall.
Delegating the team is a project/DPL commitment to help the team
succeed. We're saying this is important enough work that we want to
put in the resources and resolve conflicts that come up.
Martina> * In particular, Debian events are not required to do
Martina> anything. This can result in big events going ahead without
Martina> any kind of support for on-site conduct issues, as it was
Martina> almost the case for DebConf19 (when the CT noticed the
Martina> omission just before DC started).
I don't want to hold up the delegation to resolve this.
However, I agree with you this could be improved.
The current wording reflects the mission the CT wanted to take on.
I would support discussion of how we can get a stronger incident
response component in our events.
I don't think we'll come to conclusions in my term as DPL, but I think
it would be easy to update the CT delegation and potentially other
delegations based on that discussion.
Martina> How is the team going to make that coordination happen? How
Martina> is it going to prevent burning out people when they are
Martina> left alone to face the angry mob?
In your discussion with Steve, you noted that you don't think that the
current text talks enough
about
not letting people stand alone.
Yet you did not propose wording changes that would make it more clear
that we want to do this.
If you find yourself in agreement with Steve about what you are hoping
the CT does in this area, I'd encourage you to propose text that better captures
that.
Martina> * There are mentions of community-wide harassment, which is
Martina> of critical importance, but I see a lack of focus in the
Martina> small problems that slowly but persistently erode the
Martina> environment and result in Debian constantly losing
Martina> volunteers. Is this not a need of the project?
It very much is.
The text in that regard underlies many of the bullet points in the
responsibilities, but also in the paragraphs both above and below the
bullet points.
It is true there is one bullet point about project wide harassment.
But note that the delegation is only one part of the picture.
It's the part that is the agreement between the project/DPL and the CT.
there's also the part that the CT decides for themselves--the evolution
of the material that Steve posted last summer.
That talks about this more.
But again, if you would like to see changes here, I invite you to
propose text.
Martina> * At a first glance the people chosen do not seem to
Martina> reflect the diversity of our project, which is of
Martina> tremendous importance when dealing with cultural
Martina> conflicts.
Diversity was something that Steve raised to me at DebConf; it was
something that I raised in our internal review of the delegation text,
and it was something that the Delegation Advisory Group raised in their
review.
I think we have a great team now.
I think we will have an even more diverse team as the current recruiting
efforts cycle additional people into the team.
Martina> There were many mentions of finding what the project needs
Martina> to shape delegations, but I fail to see what are the needs
Martina> identified that resulted in this proposal.
This proposal stems directly out of discussions led by the CT last
summer.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature