Re: Question to all candidates: the FTP Team
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: Question to all candidates: the FTP Team"):
> Am Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 06:19:14PM +0800 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> > My basic question to you is: We agreed on almost everything that needed
> > to be done. You had a team insider, me, available to ask for advice on
> > how to approach certain topics, and what next steps to take. It has
> > been a whole year. Why, then, has nothing changed?
>
> I do not see the role of the DPL as simply following the agenda of a
> single team member, especially when there is known friction within the
> team, as reflected by past actions[7]. The suggestions you've made above
> are good and constructive. However, the way you proposed to achieve
> those goals in private contained details that I did not agree with, and
> they conflict with how delegated teams in Debian are intended to
> function.
It seems like you are laying blame on Sean here.
But this is *your* failure. You had all the power. As Project Leader
you had all the management tools, and the whole resources of the
Project, available to you.
Sean's ability to give you an inside view *one* of those resources.
But it was *your* responsibility as DPL to solve these problems.
Your platform promised ftpmaster reform but you failed to deliver.
You are of course as DPL free to disagree with Sean's advice.
Indeed, *judgement* about whose advice to take is part of the job.
But you mustn't fail to deliver on your promises and then complain
about the advice you were given, that anyway you didn't follow.
What you write below about consensus, is IMO a big part of the reason
for your failure. It shows a complete lack of understanding of basic
principles of governance.
> As DPL, I aim to gather advice from all sides and work toward
> solutions through consensus. I believe that this is the only way to make
> meaningful progress in a volunteer-driven project.
This is fundamentally wrong.
Delegates can be powerful. Certainly ftpmaster are powerful within
Debian. Any powerful institution risks becomeing a self-serving
empire. So powerful institutions need to be kept in check. To be
held accountable.
In the Constitution, the Project Leader is the way the Dwelegates are
accountable to the project as a whole. But accountability does not
exist if it needs the permission of those supposedly being held
accountable.
> What we need instead is to attract and empower more volunteers to take
> on this crucial role
There is a precondition you are missing. Currently, the team is
toxic. It has more than one toxic individual (see Sean's message on
-private). It has a secretive and toxic internal culture (once again
see Sean's message, but also the report from another traineee who left
the team).
No-one will want to join a toxic team and put up with toxic people,
and no-one should be asked to do so. If they do, unknowlingly,
they're not likely to stick around. This is why multiple efforts to
recruit to the team have failed.
To renew this institution, we need to get rid of the toxicity first.
That means getting rid of the toxic people.
Yes, that is disruptive and risky. But the alternative is to allow
the current situation to persist, as you have allowed it to persist.
We see this same fear play out in other areas. We have important
packages maintained by toxic people, whom no-one will get rid of for
fear of leaving an unfillable gap. This attitude is a trap.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: