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

Re: Question to Stefano: what worked, what didn't?

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:39:10PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> You covered some of this in your platform, however:
> What worked during your previous term, what are you particularly glad
> to have achieved?

Thanks for the question :-).

I'm particularly happy about:

- non-packaging Developers GR, as documented in my platform I believe
  that will turn out to be very important in the long run

- relationships with the external world: with Ubuntu and more generally
  with other derivatives, with FSF, with SFLC, with other distros
  (e.g. cross-distro meeting and Debian presence), with some upstreams
  (e.g. the GNOME foundation)

- accountability ("bits from the DPL" in various forms)

- work on delegations (although more is needed to catchup with the
  actual difference "powers" DDs have)

- spreading the "Debian verb" (talks, speeches, blog posts)

- occasional "(preventive) flame taming" on various lists

- sprints

- Squeeze! (even though my merits are quite limited on this, how could I
  *not* mention it? :-))

> What didn't work during your previous term, was there anything you
> felt you missed or did sub-optimally?

I think many things could have gone better:

- some overzealous reaction form my side on conflicts which have been
  brought on various forums. I can pinpoint at least a couple of
  occasions where I've chimed-in too early, while I've should have
  waited a bit more too gather a more informed opinion

- spreading the "Debian verb": I would have loved to blog more and more
  regularly, as in the FOSS ecosystem as it looks today, doing that is
  becoming more and more important to let others know Debian and its

- enabling more autonomy in various teams. I've joined various teams,
  wherever I thought it was a priority for Debian to work on the
  respective areas, in order to: (1) better understand the inner working
  of the given teams and (2) propose specific activities wherever I
  thought it was needed. In some cases, with very little input the teams
  have become completely autonomous (reducing my workload :-)). In some
  others they have been not. As much as I'm happy to be present and
  remain active, I take that as a symptom of the fact that I haven't
  been able to propose some sort of "governance structure" independent
  of myself, which is sub-optimal.

- accountability: I've done my best on that side, but I believe a little
  more can be done to improve upon that, as long as it remains a
  one-person show. That, again, is sub-optimal, because while I've
  enjoyed taking and broadcasting DPL activity logs, it is not something
  that everybody like. The accountability of DPL activities cannot
  depend on whether the DPL in charge "likes" it or not. Other projects
  use periodic IRC meetings of various kind of "boards", with public
  minutes, to improve accountability. I've been pondering for a while
  about something similar, although I haven't come up yet to some actual
  scheme to propose.

- money accountability (see platform)


PS It turns out that I'll be quite busy for the rest of this week, so
   there might be some delay in my answers to campaign questions.

Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: