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

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

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:14:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Please don't send me personal copies of messages that are also going to
> the mailing list, as I haven't asked for that.

Mail-Followup-To can help you with that, fwiw.

> > I know that there are a number of things that I want to do differently
> > from how Stefano's been doing them. I want to have a different focus.
> > As DPL, I want to try and motivate people to work on Debian.
> Please tell us what *specific* things you want to do differently, and
> why those specific actions need DPL authority.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:22:45PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 12:14 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > there
> > are some things I would like to see the DPL do differently
> Could you be a bit more explicit? Which things? Note that I have read
> your platform, but I still think it needs some clarifications. For
> example, you wrote that you think the DPL could do more than just
> procedural things. Like what?

It's a matter of style. I think Stefano has done a good job in
communication, but has been a bit of a... bureaucrat in other tasks. I'm
not very fond of bureaucracy. It has its place, it's necessary
sometimes, but it's always a necessary evil.

What I want to see in a DPL (and hence, what I will try to do when I am
DPL) is a motivator; someone who will try to find ways to get people
working together more efficiently. The job of the DPL is about people,
not about technology; and certainly not about procedures. Hence, I will
try to be a DPL who will care a bit less about the letter of the
constitution or the letter of the social contract, than about the people
and the job that needs doing.

Can I be more specific than that? Probably, but I'd rather not do that.
Yes, I could start picking up specific things that have happened during
the past two years and start slinging mud about it in Stefano's general
direction, but I don't think that's very helpful. I can tell you that
the difference won't be immense, however; they will be details. But I do
think that change is good; that after two years, the project can use a
different DPL. Keeping the same person in the leadership position for
too long is not a good idea.

I think this thread has started off on the wrong foot a bit. Is there a
"need" for me to be DPL? Not really. There is a need for the project to
have a good DPL, yes, and a *wish* for me to serve in that position. I
think I can do a good job, and I have thought so for quite a while
(otherwise I wouldn't be running three times in six years).

No, I think a better question would have been "do we need another year
with Stefano". It's true that he's done a remarkable job, and that it's
taken us many years to get someone who's done the job so well. In that
context, I do understand the reluctance to choose "the unknown" over
"the known good", which probably led to this question. But I don't think
that reluctance is warranted.

Stefano's best qualities as DPL have been the way in which he's
communicated with the rest of the project. He's also done an excellent
job of documenting how he's done that; this means it should be possible
for the people coming after him to copy his ways of doing things, in an
effort to improve and build upon his accomplishments. I intend to do
just that.

The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a

Reply to: