On 20/12/15 18:18, Allison Randal wrote: > On 12/19/2015 01:09 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> On 18/12/15 14:48, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >>> Given the general "DebConf Team" situation, I would really like us to >>> focus on using the existing structures for what they got built, rather >>> than having meta-discussions, which will only delay the DC17 decision. I >>> don't see value in postponing the DC17 decision until after the DebConf >>> governance tensions have been relaxed. > Yes, I agree, focusing on the practicalities and keeping things running > is the best way through this. Where we have existing structure, let's > keep using it. Where we don't, fill in as needed. > >> I feel there is a real danger that if this is done without the new >> chairs, then some people may not volunteer to participate as a chair at >> all, feeling that a significant decision has already been made without >> them and now they are just being roped in to implement it. > Hmmm... anyone petty enough to turn up their nose because we ran ahead > with practical decisions when the sky fell down, really isn't someone I > want as chair anyway. > >> Freezing the decision process may also be a practical way of emphasizing >> to the wider community that DebConf would welcome more contributions. > Our blocker right now isn't really the wider Debian community, so this > isn't putting pressure on the right point. The best approach may be to > say that the DPL is acting DebConf chair until he puts a new delegation > in place. That both gives us an established authority figure to slot in > place for immediate needs, and also encourages him to hurry up on > forming the delegation, so he doesn't have to spend the time on > day-to-day DebConf management.
The chairs resigned citing very specific issues with DebConf organization. Simply proceeding without any chairs may also be a little disrespectful to that final decision of the chairs. That said, you are right about the DPL's involvement. If the DPL was fulfilling the role of the chairs in the meeting or if he simply gives the DebConf committee a green light to go ahead without chairs or with somebody appointed chair on an interim basis then it would certainly make the process more robust. I'm not stating any opinion on whether he should or shouldn't do either of those things, but if other people want to ask him, I hope it helps. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
