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

Re: Gergely and Wouter: on the need of becoming a DPL

Raphael Geissert <geissert@debian.org> writes:

> Reading zack's platform, it makes me wonder why would you (Gergely and 
> Wouter) actually need to be elected as a DPL to do what you mention on your 
> platforms.

Because while Zack's regin as DPL for the past two years have been very
successful, and there would be a lot of things I'd do the same way
(which Wouter even highlighted as being communication), there are others
where our goals for this year differ wildly.

To explain this, I'll answer your questions in reverse order, as I
believe that would be the easiest way to arrive to a conclusion:

> * If zack was re-elected, would you follow his initiative to share DPL 
> activities with others?

Yes, I would, to some extent. Sharing the load and building on the
knowledge, skill and enthusiasm of others - or, to put it another way:
standing on the soulder of giants - is a good way to avoid spreading
oneself too thin, and remain effective.

A leader, as the name implies, is there to lead, not do everything by

> * If not elected, would you pursue your goals anyway?

I would do everything within my power to pursue them. It would become
considerably more difficult, though, but not impossible. If it's not
impossible, it's still worth trying.

If the elected DPL happens to share some of the ideas or goals I set
forth, then I see no problem with working together to achieve both our

However, with Zack wishing to oversee the completion of projects he
already started (an understandable desire!), and with his wish to train
prospective DPLs and ease future transitions, I doubt he'd have enough
time and energy to follow up on my vision too.

> * Why do you think you need to be elected as a DPL to do what you propose? 

Because I have a vision that points further into the future than the
other candidates', I believe. It would be difficult to accomplish what I
hope to do, without having the tools at hand, and those tools happen to
be in the DPL's toolbox: the ability to delegate, to be noticed and
perhaps even listened to, and to stand on a higher pedestal from where
one can get a better overview of the project as a whole.

All of these can be done without being a DPL, but then, even with the
help of the DPL, it would take considerably more time and effort, than
if I didn't have to go through another channel.

Furthermore, there's the question of "why not"? Since both Wouter and
myself intend to continue the great things Zack started and did, what
would we loose if the DPL transition happend now, and not next year?

Zack could still see his pending projects to completion, as he's the one
with the most knowledge regarding them, and as such, can remain in
control of these: that would also help the next DPL tremendously, and
thus, ease the transition.

Which in turn, also helps Zack accomplish his goal of training a new
DPL, and everybody wins! Even better, this way there's already a
successor present, and Zack does not need to worry about making sure
that in 2013 we'll have a smooth transition: we can make that happen
this year, while sacrificing nothing from either of our goals.

I have doubts it'd work as well if it went the other way around.


Reply to: