On Oct 01, 2015, at 07:47 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:

>I am a bit worried that the team is handled behind closed walls.

I have no particular interest in either grabbing power nor in taking power
away from anybody, but I think there may be some value in making team
governance more transparent and democratic.  Two reasons come to mind:

No one person has to take the heat for uncomfortable decisions.  At some point
decisions have to be made for the good of the team, whether they're technical
or social.  What might be difficult for one person to decide can be made
easier when the burden of that decision can be shared among duly elected

Team members can have more of a say --and more confidence in-- how the team is
run.  If you elect someone to a leadership role, you're giving your support to
them to make the tough decisions.  And you have the option of voting them out
at the next election.

I don't think any of that's controversial, given that the Debian project
itself is both transparent and democratic, and we always have those governance
rules to fall back on.  But that's a pretty heavyweight bureaucracy.

Does it make sense to have some lightweight rules for the team?  Is there
precedence within other Debian teams?


Attachment: pgpsDktJEK7ZG.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to