also sprach Brian Gupta <brian.gu...@brandorr.com> [2014-04-28 13:36 +0200]: > I think one thing that has helped me in the past is to keep in mind > that when I work on something in a DebConf subteam, that we are > working on a proposal for presentation to the larger team, and need to > understand that the proposal may not reflect the final decision.
This is precisely what DC15 have been doing. In my ideal world, however, the presentation to the larger team should neither constitute an invitation for everyone to voice their opinions or state how they would do things differently; nor would the presentation be framed such that a decision by the larger team were necessary. Instead, the presentation would force the smaller team to get their act together and give a status report. The recipient (larger) team of this status report would start out from a level of trust (after all, they elected the team to do the work), focus on the issue at hand (and not how someone in a parallel universe could also approach this problem differently) and ask appropriate questions whose purpose is to alert and hint, not to control. After such a status update, the reporting team would have an updated understanding of where they stand on the road between now and the goal and whether they managed to drag the larger team along. But they would continue to work within their bounds as before. Right now we have a culture in which — speaking for myself only — I dread having to approach the larger team for advice and comments, because I can forecast the difficulties and delays this brings. I do it anyway, because (as h01ger said) we are actually one big team, not two teams working against each other, and the success of DebConf depends in part on how well we manage to stick together. And it's not all negative: we've received very valuable input in the last 4 weeks, so this by itself is motivation to keep doing it. However, where I would really like to see our culture heading is towards a partnership, a culture with sparrings partners and clearly defined roles and powers. I hope one day, we'll find a way by which a local team does not have to fear or be uncertain about what it may or may not actually do, and rather appreciates (not dreads) the possibility to seek advice from dc-team (or the "elders"). This is the perspective I have (again, speaking only for myself), and maybe this explains a bit my anti-authoritarian behaviour, challenging the roles and powers of the current chairs, because I'd rather go to them for advice, frequently, and respect what they have to say, than be told that I have to bow to them. > Generally speaking, when keeping this mindset that what is being > presented is a draft, and that I expect to change it based on > feedback from the larger group, it seems for whatever reason to be > much smoother. With one exception: when the group doesn't have the necessary background information, such as when dealing with local legal constructs or tax issues. In that case, I think it's inappropriate to except anyone to convey the lacking background. Instead, there ought to be delegates empowered to make decisions. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madd...@debconf.org> : :' : DebConf orga team `. `'` `- DebConf14: Portland, OR, USA: http://debconf14.debconf.org DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
