[redirecting to -project, as this is off-topic for -devel] At 2026-01-26T11:46:02+0100, Andrea Pappacoda wrote: > > Il giorno 26 gen 2026, alle ore 00:35, Daniel Gröber > > <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > I have drafted this mail in collaboration with members of the new > > DFSG Team, other members of Community Team and the DPL. > > It would’ve been nice to also include members of the former FTP team > in the drafting process. I don’t know if it has been attempted,
Imagine yourself in the position of DPL for a moment.
There are several possibilities.
1. The DPL solicited feedback from the FTP team.
a. The team responded with hostility.
b. The team did not respond at all.
c. The team responded with impractical or unconstitutional
proposals.
2. The DPL didn't solicit feedback from the FTP team, because the DPL
doesn't have a good working relationship with the delegates.
a. Perhaps past communications from team members have been hostile.
b. Perhaps past communications from team members have been
nonexistent; their feedback has been solicited and none has been
received.
c. Perhaps, in past communications, team members have made demands
that the DPL cannot fulfill, either because they are contrary to
the DPL's understanding of the Constitution (and perhaps the
Project Secretary's too, if the Secretary was consulted), or the
DPL's pledges to the membership that resulted in his election to
the office.
3. The DPL didn't solicit feedback from the FTP team for a reason that
would reflects poorly on the DPL if disclosed.
a. The DPL forgot that the FTP team existed.
b. The DPL had a good working relationship with the team but has
decided to deliberately undercut them anyway.
None of the foregoing paint an attractive picture of the Debian Project.
If you want the occupant of an elected office to be "politic", that is
to present the Debian Project's best face to the world and to its own
membership, asking that a communication, of the kind you're replying to,
convey this sort of information is inconsistent with your goal.
In other words, if you hold to the simple principle that "if you can't
say something nice, don't say anything all", then the reason nothing was
said on the matter was that there was nothing nice to say.
Myself, I think it irresponsible to hold rigidly to that principle, but
I've certainly had my share of conflict with people who did, yet who
exempted themselves from it for the sake of challenging me on the point.
It's worthwhile to take note of people who cultivate more ways of
shutting discussions down than advancing them to productive action.
> but it would’ve probably helped avoiding not-so-nice feelings for some
> people.
I think it's more likely that more negative discussion was avoided, but
we can't know such a thing with certainty. Alea iacta est.
> This, among other things, contributes to my thought in the back of my
> head of the former FTP team being replaced without really them being
> listened to.
That's one possibility. Another possibility is that team members wanted
to be left alone to work without interference or account to anyone,
except at their own complete discretion.
> Maybe this was actually attempted, and the team wasn’t collaborative,
> but I think that a mail like this should do its best at avoiding
> people doing speculations like this one of mine.
Given the foregoing scenarios, how would you have achieved that?
> Hope things are not as bad as I think! Bye :)
You may never know, or never get to find out except by approaching a
well-connected and/or well-informed person at a DebConf. Show some
initiative and you, too, can be an "insider".
Myself, I'm dubious of the wisdom of the Debian Project stratifying
itself in such a manner, but that die was cast too, a long time ago.
Regards,
Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
