On 19/10/15 at 22:49 +0200, Daniel Lange wrote: > Dear team, > > as you may be aware the DebConf chairs have resigned two weeks ago. > I have had many discussions before and during DC15 with chairs and other > long time DebConf contributors about how to improve the DebConf > organization. > I also moderated a sprint during DC15 that (to me) showed the chair system > itself (not the persons serving as chairs) has inherent issues that we > should address. > Neil supports the team to come up with a governance proposal for him to > consider when issuing an updated DebConf delegation. > > As of today (aka my back in the office and before leaving again deadline), > there are two proposals that people came up with to provide some initial > thoughts for the discussion in the DebConf team: > > Alternative I: Two delegates (Controller and Continuity), very clear > responsibilities, election after initial delegation terms end > https://titanpad.com/DC16-draft-delegation-proposal
So, the way I understand it, this proposal does three things: 1) explicitely restrict the decisions which the chairs can interact with. I understand that the goal here is to avoid chairs that will nitpick about each and every decision. I'm a bit concerned that the current list does not cover all the opportunities for causing serious harm to DebConf organization. The wording of this in the current delegation is: When necessary, e.g. when the DebConf team's inability to make a decision has an major impact on DebConf organization, or when a decision taken by the DebConf team is perceived by the DebConf chairs as creating serious risks for the organization of DebConf or for Debian, the DebConf chairs can override specific decisions. I'm still not sure whether the problems arose from the scope of this wording, or from an inability from chairs and the DebConf team to work within this wording. I wonder if what's missing isn't a stricter process for chairs to communicate that they are making a statement as chairs. Really, I think that the technical committee sets a good example here (about how to restrict the discussion about a specific question, how to make a clear decision, and how to communicate it). 2) move the chairs selection process from designation by the DPL to election by the DebConf team. Given that the chairs are supposed to protect the Debian Project from serious issues with DebConf organization, I find it backward that the DebConf team is able to self-select the controllers. Of course it's obvious that the DebConf team should have a say about possible chairs (to ensure that they are fine with working with the chairs), but I think that an election goes to far. I wonder if a suitable result could not be achieved with a negociation between the team and the DPL about possible chairs for a specific edition of DebConf. (The important change here would be that chairs would be nominated for a specific edition of DebConf, which makes it possible to choose them based on the ability to work with specific organizers) 3) The proposed delegation also increases the power of the chairs by putting them in charge on selecting the location of the next DebConf (if I get this right -- I'm not sure of how to read "decide on the team awarded the right to conduct the N+1 DebConf"), and in charge of selection a "DebConfXX project leader". I'm not sure that this is necessary: - will that really help in improving the DebConf bid selection process? - do we really want to force each and every DebConf to explicitely have a project leader? I think that different organization models can work here, and I would prefer the team to decide on a organization model that suits them, as long as it works. Just my 2cts, feel free to ignore and think "Gosh, it's good he isn't the DPL anymore :-)" Lucas _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
