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

Re: Question to all Candidates: 2IC

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:10:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> FWIW, I think a 2IC is much more effective for outside-leaning
> communication, i.e. filtering and/or answering leader@ mail (which
> apparently can be overwhelming) and such, not for communication with
> other project members or teams.

So, in fact, that's not that clear to me. I mean, the last of "2IC" has
been Luk with Steve in the current term. In his platform Steve called
Luk "an assistant DPL" without detailing how tasks were split. To my
reading that means that tasks are effectively shared with no specific
partitioning. Accordingly, AJ when he first created the 2IC role [1],
established it as sharing the responsibilities of the DPL.

Your vision of the 2IC is much more reasonable, but I believe I will not
personally need it, if elected. For mail triaging I'm using since a
couple of years a work-flow GTD-like/inbox-zero and mails usually don't
linger that much in my INBOX, at least they do not linger there because
I don't have time to triage them. I'm confident I could triage way more
mail than what I receive now (but please don't play the game of trying
that on purpose :-))

Dealing with them is of course a different matter, but if you were
thinking about the overwhelming amount time of writing responses once a
decision has been taken, well, that can be either done by the DPL alone
or delegated on a case-by-case basis to appropriate teams like
-publicity, -press, or to new blood willing to help in that respect.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/04/msg00015.html

Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: