On 15347 March 1977, Jose Miguel Parrella wrote:
* As a DPL, what steps would you take (if any) towards reducing the workload and breadth of activities the DPL is expected to engage in?
Depending on the actual activity and there being any volunteers, it may get delegated.
* Would you pursue delegating functions such as representing Debian (as a spokesperson or otherwise), resolving differences in the project or signing authority for expenditures, etc.?
Now that highly depends on the function. First off, any DD can "represent" Debian, in some ways. That doesn't need a DPL hat. Sure, the hat makes it somewhat more "official", but same as any DD, the DPL can not just go there and "reveal" the new, big, until-now-secret direction of Debian (or other crazy stuff). Something like that needs the project to decide on it with the usual way. But yes, depending on/with some events/companies, speaking as a DPL will be perceived much more strongly. Any "normal" DD won't be heard. If that is the case, and if its sufficient, a delegation can be good. Resolving differences: I think we have ways to do that with technical differences, so I assume you think of social ones. Being a participant in the current two bigger such issues, I do think that we can still evolve a lot there, and a delegation *may* be part of it. But there are numerous people in the various involved teams already thinking about it, I don't want to take an early step here and "announce" it should go this or that way. Signing for expenditure: I think it should stay the DPLs job to make large decisions about Debian assets. I also think that not each little cent needs to be approved by the DPL. Say, something like "DSA can spend anything below $amount within $timeframe on hardware" (eg. to replace broken disks) is a good thing to do and can easily be extended to other such predictable spendings.
* Do you anticipate anything in your platform would require an amendment to the constitution or a foundation document, or to otherwise call a GR within the next year? If so, what is it and how would you debate it?
I do not expect a change to a foundational document, but depending on how it goes, two or three points in it could end up as a GR to have project backup.
* Do you believe in the concept of a DPL team? If so, do you plan to implement such a concept in the next year? If so, how?
I do not believe in a DPL team as a predefined thing that MUST happen and has THOSE members. So no, I do not intend to implement such a concept. OTOH, as I wrote, I'm not afraid to ask for help and there may be stuff that can be given to others. If that's the case I would see if there is a volunteer for it.
* Do you believe Debian is actively pursuing a vision for the next 5 years? If so, what is it? If not, do you think it should? And if so, how do you expect to work with all the decision-making bodies?
Oi, those are loads of ? here. I do not think Debian as a whole has a common vision for the next 5 years ecept for "Enhance it and release the next version". Which is a good vision in and of itself, but (I guess) probably not what you ask for. I assume a vision for your question would be more like "We need to become the #1 container provider for all the newfangled technology". Or "We must integrate all and everything from any derivative and offer it within Debian directly". I do not think that there is such a common vision all over Debian. Instead I think there are multiple areas / groups of people that do have their own vision where to go with Debian. Like there are the people working on the cloud stuff, those with Debian med, people who want to see Debian as the one place for all of nodejs/rust/go/... with all that entails. And I think it is a good thing that we have so many different areas. Molding them all together based on our common grounds makes us stronger as a whole. And the way the DPL can work with any decision-making body is by talking. By organizing meetings, possibly joint ones for multiple teams. And by finding out what they need and if applicable, get that to them. -- bye, Joerg
