On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 07:27:30 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Martina" == Martina Ferrari <tin...@debian.org> writes: > Martina> The main conclusion from that is that yes, some of things > Martina> expressed in the proposal require a delegation, I agree! > Martina> Perhaps, the disconnection lies in reading that the team > Martina> does not want to be delegated: quite the opposite, at least > Martina> from my part! I had been in talks with the previous DPL > Martina> about delegation since last year, but the burnout caused by > Martina> the events around December and January delayed progress and > Martina> then there was a DPL change, so we had to start from > Martina> scratch and with considerably less support.
> I think the process we use is different depending on which direction > we're going to go. I agree as other people have voiced, that it should be made more clear what are the things that are expected/desired to be part of a future delegation, and what are the things that are going to be part of the team operation while that is not the case yet. > […] They drive the question of whether we have > the right team description and whether we have the right people for the > job. Aha. > So if the intent is to move toward delegation, say that as a team now, > not later. > > Once you do that I'll be happy to work with you just as I would any > other group approaching changing/renewing/creating a delegation. This demand makes this interaction rather awkward, :/ given the context this is in, and which we cannot discuss in here, and which might require spelling out what I'll mention in the next paragraph, which I think should have been no need to. :( But then I see no reason at all why they need to do that now. Even though they have already stated so, and the mail you reply to went as far as mentioning a timetable of around 12 months, which TBH I pretty much interpreted as a tactful way to say “once the current DPL term is over”. Regards, Guillem
