Hi, On 26/03/14 at 07:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:44:55PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > > > Internally, we would need to adjust, but I'm quite sure that we would > > manage. Actually, the lack of a DPL might make everybody feel more > > enabled/empowered to solve problems that are usually deferred to the > > DPL, which could be a good thing. > > Hi Lucas and Neil, > > without DPL, there would be no DPL delegations. I have a question for you > related to delegations. > > When a delegate is completely inactive as a delegate, do you think that his > delegation should be renewed ? The DPL makes the final decision about delegations, but it should generally be the conclusion of a discussion with the team. Delegations without the team's agreement should be limited to extreme cases, for teams which are very dysfunctional. It happened in the past, but I hope that this will never happen again. There are good reasons for keeping people whose activity level has reduced in a team. For example, in cases where the team has to make difficult policy decisions (e.g. DAM or ftpmasters), they can serve as the team's long term memory, and provide additional viewpoints. There are also good reasons for not keeping them in the team: they might be perceived as "badge collectors" by the rest of the team, or as people who like to express their opinion and influence the team's decisions but do not do the resulting work. That can have a very negative impact on the atmosphere inside the team. It's difficult to draw a general line, and I believe that each case should be examined separately, with the delegate in question, and with the rest of the team. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature