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

Re: Q to all candidates: DebConf orga

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:03:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> What is your perception of DebConf and its organisation?
> If any, what changes would you like to implement?

The history of the DebConf team is long and varied, and has changed
quite a bit since I was involved.

(Note: background follows, feel free to skip to [TLDR])
From DebConf 3 (I think) it was basically organised on an ongoing basis
by one key person, Andreas Schuldei. It became apparent as DebConf grew
bigger that this wasn't sustainable, and the team started to grow.
At DebConf 6, the 'local' team concept started to arrive, but
unfortunately it was basically just Gunnar Wolf, who did an incredible
job considering it was just him, and he didn't even live in the same
city as the venue!
Although involved in DebConf 6, I was one of the local team and main
orga team for DebConf 7. At that point, discussions started about if
DebConf should be part of the main Debian project. At the time, there
was some resistance to doing so, mainly due to fund raising and how we
spend money.
Fast forward a few years, and we have the DebConf chairs, and the
DebConf team, which are different. This seems to have split the
difference between the two.

Organising DebConf is something that is a HUGE amount of work. There's
considerations to bid again for Cambride in future, and I'm still wary
about this after 2007! This leads to the inevitable burn out that's all
too common from high stress positions in Debian. However, it seems at
the moment the DebConf team have organised themselves to beta-test a
newer way of working, with sub-teams and leads. I'm hopeful that this
will work out, and enable a more long term team to emerge.

So, in summary, I'm basically happy to leave it up to the delegated
chairs to tell me if there's problems with the new set-up, and what
they'd like changed if anything.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: