On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:45:18PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > Although the team made a decision, a contract can not be signed if the > > budget is not endorsed by the DPL. So the DPL could defer ratification > > of the budget on any of these grounds:
> > - to ask the debconf-team to convene another IRC meeting to discuss the > > concerns of Marga, Ana and Steve. > […] > > - one concern I heard over the weekend is that some regular sponsors are > > giving money for `Debian' and it is all spent on DebConf. I don't want > I don't think I'm getting this right. Are you suggesting that I use the > DPL money-related prerogatives as a tactic to bend the decisions of a > Debian team in a way that is to my liking? If you're suggesting that, > rest assured that I would never do anything of the sort in life. When > asked to approve or refuse a budget, I will make a decision based solely > on the budget merits, i.e. on whether I think that the money at stake > would be put into good use for Debian or not. Whether the money is being put to good use for Debian is precisely the question that's being raised, AIUI. The DPL has a fiduciary duty to ensure the project's money is being spent appropriately. It's clear that some people think it isn't. I am not among them; I think a DebConf at LeCamp *can* be successful, but find this by no means certain, and am becoming more directly involved in the DebConf team at the moment because I think some people have *not* been exercising proper fiduciary care on behalf of Debian. And the risks of a failed DebConf are sufficiently high here that I would not have voted in favor of signing the current contract. (I would have been happy to express this position at the last DebConf team meeting, had that meeting not been held on a major US public holiday that entails family obligations.) But if the question is being put to the DPL, I think the DPL does have a responsibility to address that question, and not hide behind wishy-washy ideas of "consensus" and "tie-breaking". Consensus among those doing the work is a *pathological* model for decisions like this; there's a positive feedback loop between people choosing not to spend time doing the work if they don't agree with the direction, and people not feeling empowered to object because they aren't doing the work. People are now waking up to the fact that DebConf is going in a direction they don't find acceptable, and things are coming to a head at the last minute. The contract is on track to be signed this week, after which it's definitely too late for a course correction. We need decisive and timely leadership here, and that has "DPL" written all over it. Sorry, Zack, but the buck stops with you. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
