[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Question And Proposal For All Candidates

(Note: The following is cross-posted to -vote and -project. Please follow
up on topics related to the role of the DPL to -project. Follow up on
topics related to the DPL election on -vote. Thanks!)

Hi everyone,

   One of the major problems the project has faced is the inability to take
a stand on major philisophical issues without extensive and often pointless
deliberation. Overall, with 1000 developers, vocal users, and maintainers
in NM, the discussions on important issues drag on with no end in sight.
Fundamentally, it's incredibly difficult for the project to overcome the
inertia and get moving again. Notable examples of this include the GFDL
problem and the ongoing question of process bottlenecks.

   The recent resolution of the long-running GFDL issue as well as the
revitilization of the tech committee prompted me to re-examine the role of
the DPL in the project with respect to this problem. The GFDL issue was
resolved by a developer simply standing up and saying "Now we vote on this.
It's gone on long enough." Similarly, the discussion surrounding the
ndiswrapper decision currently before the tech committee was made by a
single developer saying "We've debated this enough, I'll let our normal
system of governance take over." Fundamentally, this could have happened at
any time with any of the problematic discussions of the past, but it didn't
because no developer stepped up to make this decision.

   My proposal, and related question, is that the DPL should take on a
semi-official responsibility for this task. When discussions are dragging,
it will be the DPL's job to be the one who stands up and says "We decide on
this issue now." This would mean tacking on duties like drafting GR's and
referring decisions to the technical committee. Obviously, any developer
could do this job, and the DPL is not exerting any special power, but is
instead taking on a responsibility that should, in my opinion, come with
the title of "leader". This would provide a functional mechanism by which
the DPL could act as a "facilitator" in far more concrete ways than have
previously been discussed or attempted. 

   My question, finally, to all candidates, is this: do you feel that this 
is within the practical boundaries and limitations of the DPL's office, and
do you think that this semi-official responsibility would facilitate
overcoming the inertia the project has faced in the past? Would you be
willing to take on this responsibility as DPL?

 - David Nusinow

Reply to: