On Thursday, October 01, 2015 02:11:29 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 01, 2015, at 07:47 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > >I am a bit worried that the team is handled behind closed walls. > > I have no particular interest in either grabbing power nor in taking power > away from anybody, but I think there may be some value in making team > governance more transparent and democratic. Two reasons come to mind: > > No one person has to take the heat for uncomfortable decisions. At some > point decisions have to be made for the good of the team, whether they're > technical or social. What might be difficult for one person to decide can > be made easier when the burden of that decision can be shared among duly > elected representatives. > > Team members can have more of a say --and more confidence in-- how the team > is run. If you elect someone to a leadership role, you're giving your > support to them to make the tough decisions. And you have the option of > voting them out at the next election. > > I don't think any of that's controversial, given that the Debian project > itself is both transparent and democratic, and we always have those > governance rules to fall back on. But that's a pretty heavyweight > bureaucracy. > > Does it make sense to have some lightweight rules for the team? Is there > precedence within other Debian teams? I've been a team member since, I think, 2008. This is the first time we've had anything like this come up that I recall. I don't think we have a problem with team members not having enough say as a general rule. For the git migration, the people taking the time to do the work or pay attention to the work and provide feedback are driving what happens when. There's nothing that being a team administrator has to do with it. With the exception of the DPL, Debian is not democratic. It's doacratic. Let's not mess with that. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.