On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 13:40:34 +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 04:04:49AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > 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. > [...] > > 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”. > > If one wants a delegation from a DPL, I'd expect them to work *with* the > DPL, as the DPL is the person responsible for delegations.
With *a* DPL, certainly. But the project is conformed of people, not abstract titles, groups and teams. Iff, say, some people cannot work together, then I'm not sure why it would be more desirable to make a huge mess out of that, instead of trying to work with someone else. Time also tends to let things cool down. > If a team has an issue with a DPL, I expect them to acknowledge the > issue, state their long term plans and why they wouldn't work with the > current DPL, state what they'd like to do in an interim situation, > propose a GR. > > Posting draft team missions where one has to read between the lines > about possible institutional conflicts and other unsaid issues, is > emphatically /NOT/ a way to build trust within the project. That's the ideal, yes, but it also only works when such possible issues can actually be discussed in _public_, while not being bound by externally imposed non-leak restrictions… Bringing up GRs here, seems to me to be the opposite of trying to make Debian a more pleasant environment, though. > I think the responsibility of interpreting the CoC should go to people > who we can trust not to wield it like a club, who are clearly named, and > so on. A delegation provides this. And I think they made it pretty clear already, that they were ever only considering assuming that (exclusive) responsibility, once and *iff* the team becomes delegated… > Currently, as I understand it, interpretation of the CoC is the > responsibility of the DPL, overridable by GR. Needing to read between > the lines of a proposal like this, instantly makes me think of attempts > to grab that power away from the DPL. Of trying to force a self-written > delegation on the first DPL who gets distracted for a moment. This is > most emphatically /NOT/ a way to build trust within the project. > > I have seen, in other communities, successful power grabbing attempts > done by emptional blackmail, refusals to take no for an answer, and > similar kinds of social pressure. I don't at all mean to imply that it > is what is happening here, and I trust at least some of the member of > the (AH|Community) team enough to believe it is actually not the case. But you still brought all this up. :/ > Still, I most emphatically do not want to have to read things between > the lines in a discussion like this one. Not when power is involved. Not > when trust is involved. Sorry, but this characterization seems rather unfair, when it seems to me to be the reaction of just trying to work with the restrictions imposed by previous events, characterized precisely by the thing you are criticizing in this exact paragraph. Regards, Guillem
