TL;DR: As Tina points out, this delegation does not accomplish everything. It is an incremental step forward, one of many we've taken this last year. Tina brings up a number of points where there might be value in revising text if we get the support to do so. I welcome such proposals for improvement both before and after the delegation is made. I am not seeing blockers here--I think that the delegation is enough of a step forward over the status quo. But I think that it is worth continuing the process of incremental improvement even after the initial delegation is made.
>>>>> "Martina" == Martina Ferrari <t...@debian.org> writes: Martina> It seems to me that this delegation text does not improve Martina> the situation of the Community Team compared to the current Martina> non-delegated team. I do not think it serves the actual Martina> needs of the project, My understanding is that the DPL, Community Team, and Account Managers all believe it will help the project for the Community Team to be delegated. Moreover, we had a fairly comprehensive discussion back last summer after DebConf. Steve lead that discussion and solicited feedback from the project on the CT's mission and what it would like to do. The feedback from the project was that the project would like to see a delegation for a number of the items in that mission. My reading of that discussion is that there was broad support for a delegated CT performing the mission that the CT proposed for itself. There were a few other items where things got revised in response to feedback. But this delegation is very much a follow on to that earlier discussion. The CT solicited feedback from the project. Later, after the CT grew a bit, and honestly, after some circumstances allowed us to experience first-hand why a CT is valuable, the DPL and CT got together to confirm we'd taken that project feedback into account and move to the next step. Martina> nor that it will help address the Martina> problems that have caused burnout and high turnover rates. I think there are two different approaches in play to adress burn-out and high-turn over rates. Steve talked to you about one of them: by having a larger team and by working on some internal processes he hopes to reduce this. In parallel, this delegation expresses the importance of the DPL and CT working together on ongoing recruitment. I think it will be great if Steve succeeds with his plan. However looking at what I know of other organizations where I understand how the CT/antiharassment processes work, high turnover is inherent. So, I think that recruiting may also be important. Together I have confidence that these two approaches will help move us forward. Martina> * All of the activities of the CT seem subordinated to the Martina> interest and willingness of other parties to work with them Martina> and listen to their advice. No provision is made for when Martina> this is not the case. Ever since I've been tracking the CT, this has been the case. The first etherpad you showed me about what the CT hoped it would do--back when I was a trainee on the antiharassment team--contained language talking about how the antiharassment team didn't have power to enforce decisions. That's consistent with the feedback the project was giving the AH team on debian-private and debian-project back in 2019. It's possible that before the events of December 2018, the antiharassment team had a different vision. But certainly by the time I started to see that vision--certainly well before I started to influence that decision except as a individual project member, things were consistent with what you quote above. If the CT is not able to do what it needs to do because of a conflict with another team, the CT can come to the DPL and/or the project, just like anyone else. It's absolutely true that dealing better with such conflicts is an area where Debian could improve overall. Delegating the team is a project/DPL commitment to help the team succeed. We're saying this is important enough work that we want to put in the resources and resolve conflicts that come up. Martina> * In particular, Debian events are not required to do Martina> anything. This can result in big events going ahead without Martina> any kind of support for on-site conduct issues, as it was Martina> almost the case for DebConf19 (when the CT noticed the Martina> omission just before DC started). I don't want to hold up the delegation to resolve this. However, I agree with you this could be improved. The current wording reflects the mission the CT wanted to take on. I would support discussion of how we can get a stronger incident response component in our events. I don't think we'll come to conclusions in my term as DPL, but I think it would be easy to update the CT delegation and potentially other delegations based on that discussion. Martina> How is the team going to make that coordination happen? How Martina> is it going to prevent burning out people when they are Martina> left alone to face the angry mob? In your discussion with Steve, you noted that you don't think that the current text talks enough about not letting people stand alone. Yet you did not propose wording changes that would make it more clear that we want to do this. If you find yourself in agreement with Steve about what you are hoping the CT does in this area, I'd encourage you to propose text that better captures that. Martina> * There are mentions of community-wide harassment, which is Martina> of critical importance, but I see a lack of focus in the Martina> small problems that slowly but persistently erode the Martina> environment and result in Debian constantly losing Martina> volunteers. Is this not a need of the project? It very much is. The text in that regard underlies many of the bullet points in the responsibilities, but also in the paragraphs both above and below the bullet points. It is true there is one bullet point about project wide harassment. But note that the delegation is only one part of the picture. It's the part that is the agreement between the project/DPL and the CT. there's also the part that the CT decides for themselves--the evolution of the material that Steve posted last summer. That talks about this more. But again, if you would like to see changes here, I invite you to propose text. Martina> * At a first glance the people chosen do not seem to Martina> reflect the diversity of our project, which is of Martina> tremendous importance when dealing with cultural Martina> conflicts. Diversity was something that Steve raised to me at DebConf; it was something that I raised in our internal review of the delegation text, and it was something that the Delegation Advisory Group raised in their review. I think we have a great team now. I think we will have an even more diverse team as the current recruiting efforts cycle additional people into the team. Martina> There were many mentions of finding what the project needs Martina> to shape delegations, but I fail to see what are the needs Martina> identified that resulted in this proposal. This proposal stems directly out of discussions led by the CT last summer.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature