martin f krafft dijo [Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:21:26AM +1300]:
> > This was one of the reasons where the first ~10 DebConfs were not
> > run by Debian (but by Debian people). IIRC, it was at a session at
> > DebConf 10 where we decided (of course, having discussed and all
> > that) that DebConf would become an official Debian project, and
> > that it needed a delegation.
>
> Yes, I remember. And I think we can all conclude now that DebConf is
> regarded an official Debian project, but that does not mean that it
> really needs a separate delegation. There are plenty of core
> subprojects in Debian without delegations.¹
>
> ¹) https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
>
> It seemed like the right thing at the time, but we haven't made it
> work, have we?
Well, there was conflict and misunderstanding for the DC15 edition,
and that can be attributed to incompatible personalities between the
chairs and local team or whatever. But I can tell you for sure that
the delegation worked and helped quite a bit in DC1{1,2,3,4}, even
though a not neglectible share of conflict happened at each of
them. Yes, we could have been better mediators, but as a friend used
to say, "I'm only a human, and that's when I'm lucky".
We had very rough discussions at each of the DebConfs, but in the end
the result was good and strengthened both the ongoing team and our
"brand recognition" as a successful conference. I know that my
stepping down was less than stellar (won't go into arguing that issue
now), but I was very happy to follow and participate in the
reorganization during DC14.
What happened during the pre- and post-DC15 days... Is beyond my
understanding. I followed the lists as much as I could, but frankly my
mind has been somewhere else. Finding the conflict was so bitter was
quite a shock to me. I have been working closely with the people
organizing this conference for a decade, and I simply could not expect
what I saw. And now, there are very few long-experienced people
carrying on DebConf work. Coincidence? :(
> But most of the money we use for DebConf is money DebConf raises for
> DebConf, not for Debian. For these funds, we are primarily
> accountable towards our sponsors, not Debian.
>
> It goes without saying that our sponsors only give us money because
> DebConf is *the* Debian conference, but our only responsibility
> towards the Debian Project remains ensuring that we don't promise
> things we can't deliver or otherwise acting "unfaithful" towards
> Debian or tarnishing the brand.
In the end, sponsors donate to Debian, and they gain by having a
better Debian than otherwise. The conference is an (expensive but
useful) means towards that. So, DebConf owes IMO loyalty and results
to Debian, not to the sponsors. This is one of the reasons why DebConf
belongs inside Debian.
> How to achieve this and put on a successful conference at the same
> time depends entirely on the group of people doing the work. Their
> alignment with Debian's values is a process, not something that can
> be policed through a delegation.
The delegation does not have to be seen as adversarial, and was never
seen so while I was a Chair. Delegates should be trusted to be on the
same boat as organizers. And yes, sometimes they will have a different
opinion to a local orga team member — If the opinion is substantiated,
it is worth hearing (since the Chair is not delegated just because; it
has to be a person with clear understanding and ample
experience). Veto? We didn't even think about such a dirty word until
shortly before DC15.
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
