Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> The following people in Debian leadership roles have also expressed their >> support: >> Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate) >> Angus Lees (DPL candidate) >> Branden Robinson (DPL candidate) >> Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate) > > Matthew, would you like to elaborate on why you're the only DPL > candidate not to have expressed some support for this plan? What are > your objections to it?
Despite the lack of representation from many people affected (architecture porters, for example), the conclusions reached have been presented as something of a done deal[1]. I don't think that's the way Debian should work. The proposals should have been made before the meeting took place, and people's opinions taken into account before conclusions were reached. I also have concerns about the organisation of the meeting. The first public announcement appeared two days before the meeting took place. Up until shortly before this point, even the DPL hadn't been told that it was going to happen. Meetings of this sort are obviously useful tools, but organising them without notifying the rest of the project does nothing to improve the transparency of our decision-making process. Frankly, to a large extent this meeting was everything Debian /shouldn't/ be. We've had conclusions reached without the decision making process being made clear[2]. We've had no opportunity for people to raise potential issues in advance. The way this was carried out does nothing to improve communication or consensus. (I should point out that I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions reached, only the way that they have been reached. Without knowing more about the details, I /can't/ reach any sort of conclusion about whether this is the right solution) [1] The text has actually been altered since I was sent a copy to approve, and it's rather less objectionable now - however, I wasn't sent a copy of the updated one. [2] The text I was asked to agree to contained "the crafting of a release plan for etch", not "the crafting of a prospective release plan for etch", so the degree to which they've been presented as conclusions has been reduced. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
