Re: [Debconf-team] On the "local team"
On 26/09/15 20:40, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Tassia Camoes Araujo [2015-09-23 23:42 +0200]: >> Do you think that the Chairs have any issue about the existance of >> local team? This is not true. For DC16, the local team of Cape >> Town made the *choice* of working within mixed teams of local and >> global people. It was not an imposition, and it can still be >> changed. So I'm still confused about the point of this message. > Frankly, I don't think the DC16 people knew what they were choosing. There seems to be an impression circulating around that we somehow tricked the DC16 people into this.. It is pretty funny, because we went to talk to them after already convincing ourselves that this was something that most people wanted (because of discussions in DebCamp), and we were pretty surprised by their response. I guess you should ask them -including the signatories of this email- before complaining about this decision. > There's been a trend to get rid of the concept of the local team. > The point of the message is to identify this as a garden path and > reinstate the common belief that the local team should be embraced > and supported. > > It's good to know that you agree with most of it. I would find it > interesting to hear the other chairs' positions. I agree with big parts of it, but I really don't understand what is being proposed here, or even what is being criticised. That the local team is asked to join long-lived teams instead of roaming free? Well, that was one of many points where there was almost universal consensus last year: that we need institutional memory, clear responsibilities, and boundaries. I don't see in this email any concrete proposal on how to improve the status quo, while respecting what was identified as necessities for orga. I wonder how many people did the exercise of thinking of how any particular change will fare with the real orga team, with bid teams ranging from barely existent to all-encompassing, and how the actual people involved would work with those rules. Not to mention that all this is the same old post-decision endless discussion that everyone complains about. You can find in the minutes of last year's discussions many comments about the local/global split being a problem. This year, some other decision was taken, but we keep going back to it. Next time somebody complains about decisions being challenged all the time, I will point them to these discussions... -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
On 23/09/15 18:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I haven't followed the current debate closely, so I won't comment on any > specifics, except: > On 23/09/15 at 13:15 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >> I think this is a symptom of a problem that is actually built into the >> current delegation. >> >> The delegation for the chairs only really provides one routinely usable >> power: The power to rearrange teams > > That is not part of the current delegation. What is in the delegation is > that the Chairs should "help the DebConf team define [...] a structure > (such as defining sub-teams and the responsibilities of different roles) > [...]." That's quite different. Yes. And it could be argued that we took a too executive role on this -I acknowledged this to you in person in DC15- by leading the workshops, compiling what we found to be a more-or-less consensus, and driving its implementation. But I think it also should be acknowledged that this is the first time that an actual attempt to solve the governance problems is put in place, and it was 100% triggered by requests from orga members. When I accepted the delegation, I had *no* intention of working so hard for so long on this. >> The other (more exceptional) power that the chairs have to interfere >> with day-to-day affairs is also problematic: overriding decisions >> >> While this is only used rarely, > > Actually, the value of that power is that it exists. But I don't think > that it has ever been used. It has been used, in situations where we felt that important parts of DebConf were at risk: budgetary decisions, sponsors relationships, volunteers motivation, and even some basic tenets of the conference were at stake. Every time this happened, it was because somebody from the local team acted on their own, overstepping other people's responsibilities, and without prior consultation. I would like to ask fil or any of the people who think the chairs should not exist what would they do in situations like these. Tincho. All opinions are mine, not previously discussed with the other chairs. -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] Next two weeks' meetings: Website, Timeline et al
Hi all Website: * There is a local website meeting between Tammy (tamo), Raoul (superfly) and Jonathan (highvoltage) tonight. I expect they will be on IRC for chatting as well. This is not 'dev' stuff (what do I call that?), but to do with design and content. * There will likely not be a 'dev stuff' website meeting this week due to PyconZA happening this week. Can I ask Eric, Stefano or Simon (hodgestar) to arrange a time and let the team know please? Fundraising: * There may be a fundraising meeting on Saturday... Timeline/Tasks: * Next week Wednesday there is a proposed timeline/tasks meeting to, if next week is too soon please suggest a date? General: * I would like to have a Wednesday meeting this week, but please let me know if you think it is too much. Maybe a break is good, or a reduced frequency... From my side I'm struggling a bit with all the stuff going on, and am trying to step back a bit (but I dream of DebConf so it's difficult). I hope to transfer the last agenda into a wiki and make a new agenda in due course. Currently there's just points jotted down at the top [1], please add more, even if the meeting only happens later, so we don't miss stuff. regards B [1] - https://debconf16-capetown.titanpad.com/2 ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Next two weeks' meetings: Website, Timeline et al
bugger, sorry, I forgot to include this one (was looking for it and then got distracted) DC15 final report sprint: We're collecting content here: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf15/FinalReport #dc-team Monday 1900 UTC. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bernelle Verster wrote: > Hi all > > Website: > * There is a local website meeting between Tammy (tamo), Raoul (superfly) > and Jonathan (highvoltage) tonight. I expect they will be on IRC for > chatting as well. This is not 'dev' stuff (what do I call that?), but to do > with design and content. > * There will likely not be a 'dev stuff' website meeting this week due to > PyconZA happening this week. Can I ask Eric, Stefano or Simon (hodgestar) > to arrange a time and let the team know please? > > Fundraising: > * There may be a fundraising meeting on Saturday... > > Timeline/Tasks: > * Next week Wednesday there is a proposed timeline/tasks meeting to, if > next week is too soon please suggest a date? > > General: > * I would like to have a Wednesday meeting this week, but please let me > know if you think it is too much. Maybe a break is good, or a reduced > frequency... From my side I'm struggling a bit with all the stuff going on, > and am trying to step back a bit (but I dream of DebConf so it's difficult). > > I hope to transfer the last agenda into a wiki and make a new agenda in > due course. Currently there's just points jotted down at the top [1], > please add more, even if the meeting only happens later, so we don't miss > stuff. > > regards > B > > [1] - https://debconf16-capetown.titanpad.com/2 > > > > ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] On the "local team"
also sprach Martín Ferrari [2015-09-28 10:33 +0200]: > I agree with big parts of it, but I really don't understand what > is being proposed here, or even what is being criticised. That the > local team is asked to join long-lived teams instead of roaming > free? Well, that was one of many points where there was almost > universal consensus last year: that we need institutional memory, > clear responsibilities, and boundaries. There was almost universal consensus among the people present in the room at the time that this was a worthwhile idea to pursue. However, since this series of meetings and since the installation of the teams structure, it's become crystal clear that it's not working as we had envisioned it, and there've been calls for change. A decision made in the past is not an excuse to turn a blind eye to problems and keep trying to install a structure that altogether does more harm than good. Your job is to help the team find decision-making processes and a structure, not to enforce them. This is not to say that everything about the teams structure is bad, nor that "institutional memory, clear responsibilities, and boundaries" aren't necessary. But that there are learnings of the past 12 months that need to be considered, and two of those are: - embracing the local team - ensuring people can use their time to do work towards the conference organisation, rather than losing their energy trying to figure out how to start > I wonder how many people did the exercise of thinking of how any > particular change will fare with the real orga team, with bid > teams ranging from barely existent to all-encompassing, and how > the actual people involved would work with those rules. We should certainly be careful regarding this when evaluating bids and the teams behind them. In fact, rather than focusing on gritty details about the bids themselves, we should be choosing a team that we believe is capable of organising a DebConf in their country, 18 months into the future. > You can find in the minutes of last year's discussions many > comments about the local/global split being a problem. This year, > some other decision was taken, but we keep going back to it. Next > time somebody complains about decisions being challenged all the > time, I will point them to these discussions... I hope you are not trying to purport an environment where decisions should never be challenged. Please be reminded that we all went along and supported the teams structure installation for the first 6 months, even though it really hurt us to have to wait months for the teams to be formed before we could resume work on DebConf, and we some of us disagreed with aspects of your proposal. But when the teams were finally defined and memberships canvassed, it didn't work out as expected. Some teams remained leaderless, others had leaders and shadows who didn't participate, and the were countless open questions about competencies and roles that nobody ever addressed. So actually, 12 months into this experiment, I think it's about time that we challenged the approach and actually tried to fix stuff. -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : DebConf orga team `. `'` `- DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16 DebConf17 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17 digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
also sprach Martín Ferrari [2015-09-28 10:49 +0200]: > It has been used, in situations where we felt that important parts > of DebConf were at risk: budgetary decisions, sponsors > relationships, volunteers motivation, and even some basic tenets > of the conference were at stake. Every time this happened, it was > because somebody from the local team acted on their own, > overstepping other people's responsibilities, and without prior > consultation. I contest this. At no time was anything about DebConf15 at risk. The important stuff was all arranged before the current chairs even got appointed or teams were formed. -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : DebConf orga team `. `'` `- DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16 DebConf17 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17 digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] On the "local team"
On 28/09/15 12:46, martin f krafft wrote: > This is not to say that everything about the teams structure is bad, > nor that "institutional memory, clear responsibilities, and > boundaries" aren't necessary. But that there are learnings of the > past 12 months that need to be considered, and two of those are: > > - embracing the local team > - ensuring people can use their time to do work towards the > conference organisation, rather than losing their energy trying > to figure out how to start Like I said in my previous email, I don't see how this is suppposed to happen. > Please be reminded that we all went along and supported the teams > structure installation for the first 6 months, even though it really > hurt us to have to wait months for the teams to be formed before we > could resume work on DebConf, and we some of us disagreed with > aspects of your proposal. That is certainly not the way I remember things happening. You had to wait for people to do work, yes, but it was not really the teams formation what delayed much anything, but people taking more time that you considered was needed, while at the same time not being allowed to overstep their area of responsibility. We can all agree that some teams missed their deadlines or were not particularly responsive, yes. But the issues came when instead of pushing through the coordination team for them to wake up, people tried to just override other people. Or when deadlines were pushed to teams without sensible justifications, or agreement. If we are going to conclude that this did not work, I would like to hear more concrete evaluations of the problems. > But when the teams were finally defined and memberships canvassed, > it didn't work out as expected. Some teams remained leaderless, > others had leaders and shadows who didn't participate, and the were > countless open questions about competencies and roles that nobody > ever addressed. Which team remained leaderless? Apart from the one that was not formed, and the local team took its place. Can you also point out which leaders did not participate? I don't know which open questions about competences remain open.. This has been documented, and explained many times in different media. Can you elaborate? -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
On 28/09/15 12:54, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Martín Ferrari [2015-09-28 10:49 +0200]: >> It has been used, in situations where we felt that important parts >> of DebConf were at risk: budgetary decisions, sponsors >> relationships, volunteers motivation, and even some basic tenets >> of the conference were at stake. Every time this happened, it was >> because somebody from the local team acted on their own, >> overstepping other people's responsibilities, and without prior >> consultation. > > I contest this. At no time was anything about DebConf15 at risk. The > important stuff was all arranged before the current chairs even got > appointed or teams were formed. Long-term relationships with sponsors were at risk when you authorised unilaterally an in-kind donation for a service that nobody had even mentioned before the conference started. Debconf goals were at risk when you wanted to allocate less money for sponsored food and accommodation in exchange for more fancy perks. Volunters participation and motivation was at risk when you overrode the already ongoing efforts to coordinate childcare, without even sending them an email to the people involved. A big part of the spirit of DebConf was at stake, with the possibility of alienating the Debian community, when you set up a for-pay workshop during DebCamp in the same venue, created a webpage for it, and only then decided it was a good idea to tell the team. Not that you sought agreement on this being good for DebConf, you just asked if it was OK to link the page from the main debconf website. Actually, we did not need to override decisions for these items. For some it was too late already (sponsorship already accepted, confusion and demotivation in childcare already added), for the others it was enough to speak up and spell out the problems with the approach you were taking. In any case, it is interesting how you say that because the main things for dc15 were arranged, there was no risk. The chairs care for much more than one DC cycle, we care about the next 1, 2, 5 debconfs, and for the volunteers making it happen. -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
Tincho, if you want to take things to the personal level, I suggest you mail me directly. I refute all of your accusations, mostly because you chose to present only half the picture. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, yet I would kindly like to ask you to refrain from spreading misinformation or malicious misrepresentation. Thanks, -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : DebConf orga team `. `'` `- DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16 DebConf17 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17 digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
On 28/09/15 at 11:49 +0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: > On 23/09/15 18:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > I haven't followed the current debate closely, so I won't comment on any > > specifics, except: > > On 23/09/15 at 13:15 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > >> I think this is a symptom of a problem that is actually built into the > >> current delegation. > >> > >> The delegation for the chairs only really provides one routinely usable > >> power: The power to rearrange teams > > > > That is not part of the current delegation. What is in the delegation is > > that the Chairs should "help the DebConf team define [...] a structure > > (such as defining sub-teams and the responsibilities of different roles) > > [...]." That's quite different. > > Yes. And it could be argued that we took a too executive role on this -I > acknowledged this to you in person in DC15- by leading the workshops, > compiling what we found to be a more-or-less consensus, and driving its > implementation. > > But I think it also should be acknowledged that this is the first time > that an actual attempt to solve the governance problems is put in place, > and it was 100% triggered by requests from orga members. When I accepted > the delegation, I had *no* intention of working so hard for so long on this. FTR, I think that the DC14 workshops were clearly in line with the "help the DebConf team define [...] a structure" power, i.e. that the Chairs were helping, not forcing a structure down on the DebConf organizers. But now I see that this might not be shared by everyone... > >> The other (more exceptional) power that the chairs have to interfere > >> with day-to-day affairs is also problematic: overriding decisions > >> > >> While this is only used rarely, > > > > Actually, the value of that power is that it exists. But I don't think > > that it has ever been used. > > It has been used, in situations where we felt that important parts of > DebConf were at risk: budgetary decisions, sponsors relationships, > volunteers motivation, and even some basic tenets of the conference were > at stake. Every time this happened, it was because somebody from the > local team acted on their own, overstepping other people's > responsibilities, and without prior consultation. > > I would like to ask fil or any of the people who think the chairs should > not exist what would they do in situations like these. Erm, the way I saw things when writing the delegation was that the Chairs were a kind of "DebConf Technical Committee". If the Chairs needed to override many decisions, there's clearly a problem, because (for example, maybe, just making wild guesses) the DebConf organizers have ignored the Chairs' advice, the Chairs have not been able to provide convincing advice, the DebConf organizers have made many conflictuous choices, or the Chairs have been intervening a bit too much. Maybe it would help to create a slightly more formal procedure for overrides, so that it's clear that it's no longer just advice, and that the Chairs agree on the need to override a specific decision? Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] DC15 final report sprint 2015-09-28 1900 UTC
also sprach martin f krafft [2015-09-26 21:37 +0200]: > the DC15 final report needs to get done. We're collecting content > here: > > https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf15/FinalReport > > Please see what you can contribute. Thanks to everyone who took part in the little sprint. There is still stuff to be done, so if you have a moment, please have a look. Once we have all the content on the wiki, the next task will be to identify content for a (shorter) PDF final report, and to work on that. Is there anyone up for this task? Thanks, -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : DebConf orga team `. `'` `- DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16 DebConf17 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17 digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
