On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:36:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:42:26PM +0200, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:56:07AM -0700, Patty Langasek wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 02:32:30PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > > > <lots of snipping> > > > > > The above was a long paragraph to state that I currently prefer > > > > madduck's proposal to yours. > > > > Agreed. Taking our comments when we're separated isn't going to resolve > > > anything. And, if anything, fully encourages me to make sure I have lunch > > > with madduck and OdyX to prepare that both dinners can drive a consistent > > > message, which is probably exactly what you don't want, and exactly what I > > > will do (and I fully admit I'll do it). > > > How is that negative? Right now I see something like 10 different messages, > > if we have a meeting and there is only 3 different messages, it's an > > improvement... > > Because consensus of the part is not a proxy for consensus of the whole, and > dividing the groups arbitrarily by local team distorts the conversation. > > Siloing of local teams is a persistent problem within DebConf organization, > which has reached an all-time high this year with people telling me "the > local team should be planning to take care of <list of functions that are > completely invisible to anyone following debconf-team and which have > historically been driven by a team of long-term domain experts>". It's not > healthy to have on the one hand people saying "there is no local or global > team, just the team", and on the other hand saying "you'd better find local > volunteers for these things that have nothing to do with the conference's > location or else DebConf won't happen". > > So no, I don't intend to participate in any plan that involves separating > the teams by year to have separate conversations. It's hard enough to > improve the institutional continuity of DebConf year over year due to the > nature of the work and the burnout factor; we don't need to make it worse by > quarantining the teams for such an important discussion topic. >
I feel like we're discussing two totally different issues here O_o If you're against the chairs talking with people grouping them by debconf year or global team, suggest something else. I understond that the goal here is taking the time to hear what everybody has to say about the problems and possible solutions. _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
