Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
Hi. We got some interesting feedback during the nominations process that I just finished following up with. It is consistent with feedback I got talking to people in DC19. There are concerns that the active debconf-team is smaller than we'd like. In some cases it's been the local team plus not a lot else. To emphasize: the committee's role is not to be the debconf team. Committee members may be active members of the debconf team, and certainly we need at least one or two who are very active in debconf-team. The question is whether the committee should have a significant role in keeping track of how active the debconf team is and working to find volunteers to keep the organization vibrant. The proposal we got both in the nominations process and that we got in feedback at DC19 is that this should be a committee responsibility. As we approach thinking about any revisions to the delegation text, I wanted to start a discussion on this. How do we feel about that responsibility? Is that something the committee should take on? Are there any changes to the delegation text we want to make in this regard? Thanks for your thoughts, --Sam
Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
Hi Sam, On 13/11/2019 09:01, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > Hi. > We got some interesting feedback during the nominations process that I > just finished following up with. > It is consistent with feedback I got talking to people in DC19. > > There are concerns that the active debconf-team is smaller than we'd > like. > In some cases it's been the local team plus not a lot else. Yes, I agree with you. > To emphasize: the committee's role is not to be the debconf team. > Committee members may be active members of the debconf team, and > certainly we need at least one or two who are very active in > debconf-team. I already expressed this opinion before, but I really believe all 5 Committee members must be part of debconf orga helping in at least one of the teams. Specially when some teams need help because of lack of people, for instance, sponsors team. > The question is whether the committee should have a significant role in > keeping track of how active the debconf team is and working to find > volunteers to keep the organization vibrant. > The proposal we got both in the nominations process and that we got in > feedback at DC19 is that this should be a committee responsibility. Yes, I think so. I think the main role of choosing the next city is too little. > As we approach thinking about any revisions to the delegation text, I > wanted to start a discussion on this. > How do we feel about that responsibility? Is that something the > committee should take on? In my opinion, yes :-) > Are there any changes to the delegation text we want to make in this > regard? I think you should emphasize that all members need to have time to help debconf organization besides vote for the next city. If a member don't have this time to dedicate to DebConf, it's better they ask to be replaced. Best regards, -- Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls) Curitiba - Brasil Debian Developer Diretor do Instituto para Conservação de Tecnologias Livres Site: http://www.phls.com.br GNU/Linux user: 228719 GPG ID: 0443C450 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
> "Paulo" == Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana writes: >> To emphasize: the committee's role is not to be the debconf team. >> Committee members may be active members of the debconf team, and >> certainly we need at least one or two who are very active in >> debconf-team. Paulo> I already expressed this opinion before, but I really believe Paulo> all 5 Committee members must be part of debconf orga helping Paulo> in at least one of the teams. Specially when some teams need Paulo> help because of lack of people, for instance, sponsors team. I think there's a lot of value in having a team of advisors and last resort decision makers without requiring those people to be active in the current orga. Both models are possible. I'm aware of a number of science fiction conventions for example where the ultimate decision making body is composed of the heads of the sub teams. However, specifically because we want to preserve some institutional memory as we move city to city, I think that requiring DCC members to be actively involved in orga is something I would not support. I think it also gets in the way of increasing diversity, and having a moderating influence if there's a lot of stress. I'd caution you to think about how you prioritize some conflicting goals. Which do you want more: a healthy active debconf-team, or the DCC to be involved in that team. Focusing on requiring the DCC to be actively involved would be the sort of thing I'd expect if they were making decisions that made no sense or that didn't work for people on the ground. Pushing the DCC to become actively involved will not get you a bigger debconf-team with any certainty.
Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
Hi Sam,
Am 13.11.19 um 12:01 schrieb Sam Hartman:
The question is whether the committee should have a significant role in
keeping track of how active the debconf team is and working to find
volunteers to keep the organization vibrant.
The proposal we got both in the nominations process and that we got in
feedback at DC19 is that this should be a committee responsibility.
(all personal statements below, no DCC hat)
I'm very o.k. with taking over the responsibility to keep the
organization ("DebConf-team") functional. In the current delegation text
this is laid out as "monitor the progress of DebConf organization and
ensure that the defined team structure and decision-making processes
remain functional and sufficiently efficient to ensure a successful
DebConf."[1]
I'm fine with trying to grow the team and all the people I bug regularly
can give testament of this being an active outreach process. I know
other DCC members do this too as we talk about this (and don't always
agree on whom to reach out to).
If you feel such outreach needs to be represented in an updated
delegation text, please go ahead. We do have outreach on a Debian level,
that is probably more where I would personally look at.
I think "vibrant" is over the top. Individual teams must see that they
are sufficiently attractive to recruit and keep members. See the video
team for an excellent example. The DCC is a fallback to "help the team
in establishing appropriate structures" and "advise the team and share
their experience of DebConf organization" (from the delegation text).
That is well thought out and sufficient in my opinion.
I'm not happy to have "the local team" try and throw jobs they don't
want to do "over the fence". I actively resisted that on a recent
DebConf and so did other "senior" DebConf team members. That may be the
reason why you got such feedback. It worked in the end, the teams were
staffed with local members too and the conference was well funded, well
organized and overall successful.
Kind regards,
Daniel
[1]:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/10/msg0.html
Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
Hi Daniel, On 13/11/2019 14:11, Daniel Lange wrote: > > I'm not happy to have "the local team" try and throw jobs they don't > want to do "over the fence". I actively resisted that on a recent > DebConf and so did other "senior" DebConf team members. Are you talking about something related to DC19? Best regards, -- Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls) Curitiba - Brasil Debian Developer Diretor do Instituto para Conservação de Tecnologias Livres Site: http://www.phls.com.br GNU/Linux user: 228719 GPG ID: 0443C450 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
> (...) > There are concerns that the active debconf-team is smaller than we'd > like. > In some cases it's been the local team plus not a lot else. I agree this should _really_ not be the case. We have long tried to counter the (quite natural TBH) split between local and global teams, because it hurts all workflows. We need the best approximation we can get at a single organizing team. > To emphasize: the committee's role is not to be the debconf team. > Committee members may be active members of the debconf team, and > certainly we need at least one or two who are very active in > debconf-team. I understand this, and I understand this was one of the perceived failure points in the previous delegation model (the DebConf Chairs). However, the DebConf Team needs to take care that DebConf organization progresses as smoothly as possible - and that requires some degree of involvement; a DC Committee member that only tunes in to the discussions early in the year to choose the next venue is... IMO, a quite lacking definition. I don't want this to be read as a criticism to people who have worked this way - The model was tested, and it has some advantages (i.e. not having a small group have decision power over the rest leads to a more democratic, flat organization, and that preempts some of the tensions we have suffered in the past). But it can be tweaked and tuned to serve better. > The question is whether the committee should have a significant role in > keeping track of how active the debconf team is and working to find > volunteers to keep the organization vibrant. > The proposal we got both in the nominations process and that we got in > feedback at DC19 is that this should be a committee responsibility. I think being part of the Committee should imply members keep track of what's going on in orga (even if they cannot attend meetings or don't have the cycles to get deeply involved in every iteration of DebConf under their tenure). I expect Committee Members to, at least, read meetings minutes and help point at issues that are showing signs of possible upcoming failure or pain.
Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
> "Gunnar" == Gunnar Wolf writes: Gunnar> I understand this, and I understand this was one of the Gunnar> perceived failure points in the previous delegation model Gunnar> (the DebConf Chairs). However, the DebConf Team needs to Gunnar> take care that DebConf organization progresses as smoothly Gunnar> as possible - and that requires some degree of involvement; I agree that DCC members need to have involvement in following what is happening. They should be following enough to be aware of issues, and enough to have informed opinions should an issue reach the DCC. They should be following enough to give advice/mentorship. Gunnar> Gunnar> a DC Committee member that only tunes in to the discussions Gunnar> early in the year to choose the next venue is... IMO, a Gunnar> quite lacking definition. Yeah, I'd ask DCC members to commit more than that. I cannot speak to what has happened in the past, but I have confidence that we'll be able to choose members from the set of volunteers we have who will not just tune in for selecting the next location. I am not casting negativity at anything that has happened in the past. I can't speak to it because I don't know. Gunnar> I don't want this to be read as a criticism to people who Gunnar> have worked this way Agreed. >> The question is whether the committee should have a significant >> role in keeping track of how active the debconf team is and >> working to find volunteers to keep the organization vibrant. The >> proposal we got both in the nominations process and that we got >> in feedback at DC19 is that this should be a committee >> responsibility. Gunnar> I think being part of the Committee should imply members Gunnar> keep track of what's going on in orga (even if they cannot Gunnar> attend meetings or don't have the cycles to get deeply Gunnar> involved in every iteration of DebConf under their Gunnar> tenure). I expect Committee Members to, at least, read Gunnar> meetings minutes and help point at issues that are showing Gunnar> signs of possible upcoming failure or pain. Agreed.
Re: Committee Role: Helping build the debconf-team
Hi Paulo, Am 13.11.19 um 17:53 schrieb Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana: On 13/11/2019 14:11, Daniel Lange wrote: I'm not happy to have "the local team" try and throw jobs they don't want to do "over the fence". I actively resisted that on a recent DebConf and so did other "senior" DebConf team members. Are you talking about something related to DC19? Of course. But as everybody involved knows anyways, I would not have had to make it explicit. http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2018/debconf-team.2018-11-05-21.58.log.html#l-84 I'd be there and I guess more people from previous years but DC19 folks need to own the budget. Expenses and income. Kind regards, Daniel
