I think it would be good for us to send one mentor and one admin. Jaminy (who has been a great admin) expressed interest. Are there any objections?
Unless anyone else has strong feelings, I'm inclined to literally roll the dice and randomly pick someone. Cheers, Molly On 08/09/2018 03:47 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 09/08/18 16:47, Lucas Kanashiro wrote: >> >> >> On 08/09/2018 06:16 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >>> >>> On 09/08/18 00:57, Lucas Kanashiro wrote: >>>> I do not know if you understood what I was saying... I am not arguing >>>> that people that do not maintain packages do not worthwhile (I know the >>>> Debian constitution). I was claiming that even mentors can be newcomers >>>> in our project, and if want to keep them tighten to our community, a >>>> conference such as Debconf is the right place. >>>> >>> Yes, I fully agree we need to make it easy for people to attend Debian >>> events and events where Debian has a stronger presence (reminder: the >>> DPL offers[1] USD 100 to anyone for travel to a BSP, contact[2] him for >>> details) >>> >>> For the summit, however, we still need to decide whether to use some or >>> all of the criteria that have come up or just to fall back on the >>> previous algorithm: randomly pick from those people who never attended >>> the summit before. >>> >>> >From what I can see, there are now 6 candidates (Dashamir, Lucas, >>> Jaminy, Urvika, Chirayu, Milena) and none of them attended before, is >>> that correct? >>> >>> To tweak the previous algorithm to ensure diversity, we could start by >>> randomly selecting one of the 3 women and then make a random selection >>> from the remaining 5 candidates. As Molly is the only remaining person >>> named in the last delegation, perhaps we can ask her to roll the dice? >> >> You can ensure diversity for sure (1 slot for women). But again, pick >> randomly people that may not understand what Debian is to represent the >> project might not be a good idea. I think that I already made my point, >> I'll leave this decision up to admins. >> > > I'm not saying this is the best approach, only that if we don't get a > lot of feedback from people it may be easier to simply fall back on the > default (or something very close to it) from previous years. > > If somebody wants to volunteer to take the possible criteria and work > them into a new selection procedure now is the time. > > For example, this could be a nice little script in the outreach-admin > repo on Salsa: > > 1. putting all the candidates in a table, with boolean values for each > of the criteria > > 2. making a set of all candidate pairs that satisfy the selection goals > (every mentor should appear in at least one pair) > > 3. randomly choosing one of the pairs from the set > > Step (2) is the part of the process that may need some thinking about. > > Regards, > > Daniel > >