Hello everybody,
First of all, thanks for all the support that followed the new chairs
delegation and I'm sorry for my silence in the past week. I had to be
AFK for personal reasons.
So I've tried to read the backlogs of this discussion and it is clear to
me that there is a need to talk. Maybe not exactly in the format
proposed by Madduck, but just having the space to talk seems pretty
reasonable to me. Vorlon's concerns about the new delegation were
followed by a call for discussion about debconf governance in DC14,
which was accepted by the DPL with the expectation of debconf chairs
participation. As a recently nominated chair, I don't feel very
confortable to be *the* chair present in this discussion, so I'll talk
in pvt with the others and see what we could do as a team.
I truly believe that even if this discussion is not scheduled, it will
happen anyway in the hallways. And what we risk to have at the end is
more noise than real improvement of the status quo. At the same time, I
think that no perfect formula will come out from one 45-minute session.
Maybe we could think of a series of meetings spread during the whole
conference? Would we have energy for that?
Best regards and see you in Portland,
Tassia.
On 2014-08-18 17:09, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Moray Allan <[email protected]> [2014-08-18 22:33 +0200]:
When an event proposal is rejected by the talks committee then again
by the conference chairs, it might be useful for you to consider
listening to the reasons why before simply "self-scheduling" the
events.
Moray,
I am not aware of any rejection "by the conference chairs". My
pre-message to a bunch of people including all chairs was followed
up only by Tincho (not speaking for all chairs), and I replied to
him (and you) two days ago. Since then, I had a short, very abridged
conversation with Tincho, wherein there was no rejection or
objection — nor approval.
I received no other reply from anyone.
Regarding the talks team rejection, I respect that they couldn't
allocate a slot to my event proposal for reasons, whatever they may
be. But this does not mean I can't (shouldn't) organise it
otherwise, does it?
My motivation is to use our time at DebConf to approach complex and
hard issues with the benefit of sitting in a room together.
To date, I am not aware of any such efforts. I am certain there will
be a myriad of bilateral discussions, but that's no different from
last year, and we've not really advanced since then. Therefore
I went ahead. If it fails, it fails, just like all previous attempts
to rethink DebConf governance have failed.
I am happy to scratch these sessions because the chairs have
different plans, or to organise the sessions for you to lead, as
I told Tincho.
Hope this clarifies things…
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
