* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-09 20:39:20]: > Last November, you and the DPL team wanted to propose a GR that would > have forcibly made everyone in a position of authority a formal > delegate, and stated that you had replacements ready if they were > unwilling to comply.
The GR was intended to clarify a situation that arose precisely because Branden had talked with some ftp-masters. (So your question 4) is not really valid.) Branden got told that he could not delegate those old core teams since they pre-dated the constituion and for that reason the constitution was not really applicable to them. (This is of cause incorrect: the constitution was ratified in a GR for the whole project. Other positions like the DPL predate the constitution, too, and still they are very much subject to it.) > 1) You now appear less willing to do so. What has changed? The GR was intendet to clarify that point. However, in a small oppinion poll I found that this apparently was already clear to everyone in the project. A GR would not have added much value but instead created unnecessary unrest and work > 2) At the time you said that you had new ftp-masters and a new security > team ready to replace the existing ones. Does this mean that you already > have good additional people that could (in your opinion) make a > difference in team dynamics and performance? At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a variety of less drastical ones. I told you that we were trying to mediate, encourage reconciliation, deescalate by getting different people to talk to them, change the social setting to give them incentive to change, etc. The security team (which is in the process of restructuring itself successfully) is actually a good example of how the adding of a new member can help in several ways. Moritz - does a lot of work, even on old stable software - is open to new ways of working team oriented - has time and dedication and ambition to improve the situation - is willing to try to compensate for joey's "mail only" tracking by proxing into the issue tracking tools - works tighly together with the much bigger and better testing-security team and channels their work into the stable team, even I did not go after FTP-Master either. I was more worried about DSA, which suffers badly under the social jam that you currrently can witness and is paralysed by it. My current greatest hope is that the good example of the security team can inspire it to reform itself in a similar way. Actually the candiate that I would suggest is also their prefered choice, they just cant get to talk about it. I gave you his name, even. > 3) You have previously claimed that new people were formally delegated > to the security team during the past year. This was never announced on > debian-devel-announce, and these delegations were never posted on > http://www.debian.org/intro/organization . If you were unable to > successfully add people to teams then, why do you believe you would be > able to do so during your time as DPL? Yes. We had asked Joey to give some people access and priviliges so that they could release kernel DSAs themselfs, quickly. In the current framework this is not necessary any more for the reasons given above. My goal (now, as then) is to convince teams to take up new members themselfs, as the security team did in the end. I think I am in an excellent position to do so since I already spend a lot of time talking to all involved parties and we covered a lot of ground. During this conversation you yourself pointed out a major "flaw" of my position at that time: I was not the DPL. This time around I would be DPL when continuing to talk with these people, unlike then, when I was only a DPL-team member. With the body of developers empowering me to lead these negotiations these teams would know that the Debian Community was very much interested in the reform of their teams for the better and would most likey consider it very seriously. > 4) You were planning to propose a GR that would have made the > ftp-masters formal delegates. However, at the time you had not actually > raised this with the ftp-masters. How does this fit with your desire for > the project to be more open and communicative? Please see above. There had been talks and mails, even face-to-face ones. People were informed of the intention to delegate. Regarding not coming out with the GR out front, irritating and potentially threatening them, was totally intented. As written above I was interested to hear what my fellow DDs thought and get feedback on it. The people were not informed of the GR that never came to pass since they are overly touchy and feel threatend quickly. Until you told them, that is. (c:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
