* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 10:35]: > Reading over your platforms, I notice that they are very similar. I > don't think this is a bad thing; I happen to agree quite strongly > with both of your assessments of productive roles the DPL can play > in our community.
I think recent discussions have clearly shown the issues which have to be addressed in the next term. I am therefore not surprised that our platforms overlap to some extent. The question is really: who is best personality to address these issues? As I've argued in my platform, I think I am best suited to approach the current issues and to lead Debian. I think it is quite telling that I have a section about "My Skills and Personality" in my platform whereas Branden's platform gives less attention to this. > Unfortunately, this means I find it difficult to rate one of you > over the other as candidates. In your opinion, what are the factors > that differentiate you from the other as a candidate, either in > terms of your platform or of your abilities to achieve the stated > goals? I have better social and people skills, and it is much easier to approach and interact with me. I think these are very important features because the project leader role is all about staying in contact with other people, talking to them, listening to them and representing them. If you want to fix a problem, you have to understand it first. I know many people in core teams, know how those teams work and can therefore approach problems much better. I also know a lot of people on a personal basis, and are friends with them. As a matter of fact, I spent this evening in a pub with James Troup, Colin Watson and Daniel Silverstone. All of them are good friends of mine, and we spent the evening discussing various Debian issues, and also simply having a lot of fun! (I actually started writing a TODO list in the pub so things we have discussed are not forgotten about.) I care about lots of people in the project on a personal basis, not just on a project-related one. Also, I think my approach to tackle issues works better. My approach is very soft, very evolutionary. I first make a clear picture of the whole situation. Talk to various people, on all sides. I work with people to see how they can get be helped, what they need, etc. I would not simply replace someone against their wish unless this is necessary, but I'd work with them, to find a solution which works for them and for others. This approach works very well, but sometimes takes time. Also, the activities are usually in the background, and others might not immediately be aware that progress is being made. In my opinion, Branden takes a more revolutionary approach. Things have to change, and they have to change NOW. In my opinion, such as an approach usually does not work, especially if you do not work together with the people who are affected. Finally, my approach is more pragmatic, and I think this produces much more solutions. While I agree with Branden that attention has to be given to the Constitution, he makes the impression that he cannot do anything without the Constitution and the authority granted through it. This is in contrast in how I perceive the project. In his past platforms and campaigns, he suggested becoming DPL would give him the authority to do something about inactive maintainers, to introduce an emeritus class, and this year to improve New Maintainer. While Branden was asking for authority to do all of this, I simply went ahead and approached the problem of inactive maintainers and introduced system tracking of them, helped separating emeritus people (together with James Troup) and significantly improved New Maintainer, as you can see in an independent analysis: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200402/msg01698.html > What do you each believe are your *weaknesses* compared to the other > candidate? As I said above, my approach is very gentle. I think it's an advantage rather than a weaknesses, but some people are looking for a big, strong, vocal person to fix all problems Debian currently has. Of course, things don't work this way; problems can only be fixed by working with people, something I'm really good at. One weaknesses is related to me mostly caring about _fixing things_, and this is often achieved "magically" in the background without people perceiving my involvement. For example, even though New Maintainer would suffer immensely if I stopped my work on it, most applicants are probably not aware of my involvement in NM at all. In the case of being DPL, there is an amazing number of day-to-day work which has to be done, but it's not worth talking about because each of the issue on its own is very small. However, if they were not dealt with on a daily basis, major problems would soon result. So one weakness is that I am not vocal enough about the work I do. I try to provide status reports, such as the report listing what I have been up to in the first 6 months of being DPL. However, at the end of the day, I'm more concerned with fixing things rather than telling people about all the great things I've done. (Having said that, I am for full disclosure and transparency, and always answer people's question. If you look at -devel archives, you'll see that even a NM applicant who has been rejected said that I always dealt with him in an open and fair way, and that he'd elect me as DPL (a shame that he cannot vote, really ;), but the rejection was for the benefit of the project as a whole)). -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
