On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 04:18:30PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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.
Just a comment on this, since you seem to be mentioning me a lot, both
in your platform and in campaign discussions. Which, BTW, I find
entirely appropriate: I'm standing for reelection so it's only fair to
bring "compare and contrast" points in the discussion.
I won't mind specific examples of things people think I've been doing
wrong, both coming from candidates and non-candidates. It will be a
chance for me to explain why I did something in a specific way, in the
case that I haven't done so at the time. It will also make this
discussion more concrete and less hand-wave-y.
Since you've repeatedly mentioned my "bureaucracy" and "procedures" (not
to mention "bureaucrat" referred to my person, which doesn't feel as
nice, at least in popular connotations :-)), I'd like to point out that
procedures are just a mean to an end. They are incentives. They are
implementations of changes that we think are good for the project. Just
a few of concrete examples:
- I've been routinely asking delegates to provide a sort of "tasks
description" before renewing, or creating from scratch, delegations.
All those descriptions have been stored under (or at the very list
indexed from) http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ . Is that bureaucratic?
Yes. But it allows to find out what is the scope of a delegation
rather than relying on folklore. And *that* is very useful in conflict
solving (been there).
- I've been routinely asking sprint participants to document their
sprints under http://wiki.debian.org/Sprints before asking for budget
approval and of sending public sprint reports before asking for
reimbursements. Is that bureaucratic? Yes. But is useful in many ways:
1/ it shows what we do with money and it helps in attracting sponsors
(see recent thread on -project); 2/ it dispels the risk of "cabals
meeting in secret on Debian money" (we have been there already, we've
had enough) and gives transparency on how Debian money are used; 3/ it
provides a flow of information about what is going on in various areas
of the project, increasing the permeability among teams.
Just examples, I'll be happy to provide similar rationales for every
single procedure I've encouraged.
On the other hand, procedures might have bugs, feel free to report them!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature