On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> wrote: > I believe you provided an excellent argument in your previous mail in > favor of (b): people should feel they own a decision or, i.e. that > they'll have to live up with the consequences of their own choice.
I was hoping someone might have a good argument the other way. :) > Delegating people just to take a decision and then leave them free to > ignore the consequences of the decision (not that I think that they will > do that, but at a responsibility level it is possible) doesn't sound > right. Yes, I can see some neatness in having a delegation for a clearer task, and some advantage in then being able to more easily include those who don't want to work on DebConf heavily over a long period, but following the view above does seem to work elsewhere in Debian. There's then still a question of whether there's a separate delegation for each DebConf, or an ongoing one. While I can see advantages in separation there too, in practice a lot of the 'global' DebConf work is mixed across years -- e.g. getting the report out for one DebConf is useful mostly to the next -- so I'd again suspect a single delegation makes more sense. -- Moray _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
