lucas wrote:
> What could work is a group of people that are elected together, agree
> beforehand on how to share the various areas of responsibility, and
> synchronize very frequently to align their views. But it's probably hard
> to be efficient in the typical Debian setup, and to determine a split of
> responsibilities that would work.
>
> If people want to experiment in that direction, a group of people should
> probably come forward, choose one of them as the DPL candidate, and
> experiment after they get elected. It will always be time to write
> things in stone^Hthe constitution when we have an organization that seem
> to work and could be generalized.
I would strongly consider offering help to a DPL team structured this
way and chartered with offloading as many of the current delegations
plus the financial, spokesperson, conflict resolution and front desk
responsibilities from the DPL role as reasonable, including through
additional votes within the year.
Lucas, you also wrote:
Responsibility #0: Keep Debian fun and functional
I guess many anecdotes about this can't be told via Bits from the DPL
but since Bdale seems to imply [0] that the people aspect is actually
the least avoidable and the most energy consuming of the role, can you
and/or other former DPLs provide some insights on why can't this be
handled by petit comite?
You allude to "the authority associated to the position" as part of the
DPL toolset. Do we think a DPLTeam would "lose" that? Conversely, if we
were to lighten the load on the DPL so that they could focus on people,
do we truly see the DPLite as Chief Mentor for the Project?
[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/03/msg00026.html
