Hi, On 19/08/14 at 13:24 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > I fully side with Steve in thinking that the delegation was > a mistake and set you all up for misery. We should fix much more > than filling in vacant positions for unclear roles in an > organisational structure that evidently isn't up to the task.
I think that you have repetitively been doing the same mistake about the DebConf chairs delegation. The DebConf chairs delegation does not define an organisational structure for DebConf. What it defines is an interface between the DebConf team and the rest of the Debian project. Using a technical metaphor, the DebConf chairs group is a monitoring infrastructure, or watchdogs, for DebConf organization: they ensure that it works, and sometimes make the hard decisions when needed. Note that I don't see the DebConf chairs as necessarily part of the DebConf team: they could take a fully external stance to monitor the orga team. Of course, it's probably easier if they take part in meetings and discussions to provide earlier feedback, but it's clearly not a requirement. And of course, they don't have to be involved in DebConf organization outside of this monitoring role. So I think that there are two different questions: 1) DebConf organization/structure/governance "How should we organize DebConf? How much of the work should be local/global? Which teams? How much freedom should be given to each local team to differ from the 'template organization'?" As the DPL, I think that it's important that the DebConf team has this discussion, but as the DPL, I also don't really care about the answer: it's an internal matter of the DebConf team, and not something where the DPL should meddle. 2) Relationship with the rest of Debian "How does this fit within the larger Debian project? Which safety mechanisms? Who gets to decide in fine, when everything else has been tried?" The current answer to that question is that I (and the Project, through their delegation) trust Martín, Moray and Tassia with the hard work of monitoring the DebConf organization and ensuring that it works. It's possible that there are better answers to that question, and I'm open to discussing them with everybody interested. My 2 cents about the current discussion: Based on the discussions so far, I still fail to understand how the proposed governance changes (e.g. https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/GovernanceProposal14++) address the problems that were perceived in the past. As Didier wrote, I think that clearer statements of the problems, with the POV of various parties, would help a lot. I'm thinking of statements such as: "As a chair during the DCn organization, I felt that ..." "As a member of the local team during the DCn organization, I felt that ..." "As a member of the sponsorship team during the DCn organization, I felt that ..." etc. Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
