On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:13:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Most of you have answered that it's not possible to regulate the heated
> discussions but it's possible to set a good example. If only the leader
> behaves properly, it will still be difficult to make the climate change.
> But if all the delegates behave properly, and if delegates that do not
> behave properly are withdrawn due to this, we might get better results.
FWIW, I've also stated that: (1) others than the DPL should equally set
an example and, more importantly, exercise peer pressure on who is
"misbehaving" and (2) that we should start forming the next generation
of DDs. (This is not a criticism on your representation of answers, just
a clarification on my position.)
> What do you think of this and would you be ready to withdraw a delegation
> for a delegate that behaved badly towards another DD (even outside of his
> delegated role), that has been warned once by you and that did it again
> later on?
I agree on your point that: having the DPL setting an example is one
thing while having all the DPL + core teams doing that is another (much
better) thing. That means that the DPL, for the benefit of the whole
project, should do his/her best to have core teams communicating
"properly". I will surely mail, privately first and then publicly next,
a delegate which is "behaving badly" (your wording) about that.
Frankly speaking however, I don't see much the reality of your example,
or maybe I'm just missing what you've in mind when you write "behaving
badly". Of course I'd consider unacceptable for a delegate to
repeatedly, e.g., insult someone on list. Such a behavior would warrant
early warning and eventually even delegation withdrawal. But I don't
remember any such extreme example in the recent past. If you've specific
examples, please reference them and I'll be happy to tell you what I'd
done.
In fact, the most frequent remark on the communication of delegates is
about the lack of it. If elected DPL, I would surely encourage delegates
to communicate periodically about what they're doing. Nevertheless, we
should remember that communicating *is* an additional burden and while
the DPL can decide for him/herself how to balance his own efforts (I've
already discussed in another thread my intended personal balance), the
DPL cannot *force* such decision on delegates. I'm convinced that in
most cases the DPL has alternative levers though: for instance the DPL
can communicate _in place_ of the delegates (giving proper credit), can
pose a kind of _periodic communication requirement_ when establishing
new delegations, can appoint _new people_ as co-delegates choosing
people that do like communicating. Let's remember that there are people
that like to communicate, even among geeks, it is just a matter of
associating them with complementary kind of people.
> Do you think we can draft a code of conduct for Debian and do you think
> you can ensure that it would be respected by delegates?
I don't like the idea of using Code of Conducts (CoCs) to retaliate a
posteriori saying « see, you've just violated CoC §1.2.3.4 ». It can't
work that way in our Debian world, where even if we can establish
trials, those trials will simply get the fun out of all involved people
(and often a lot more). I rather believe that CoCs, and the signatures
apposed thereon, exist to have people read them and, in the long run, to
create a specific culture within a project (that's why I would like the
idea of having some document along these lines read and possibly signed
during the NM process).
To that end, delegates are not special DDs and should not have specific
CoC to sign.
Cheers.
--
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