* Jose Miguel Parrella <[email protected]> [2019-03-19 18:43]: > * 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?
I intend to make use of the delegations process (maybe I'll even create some new roles) and if elected I'd like to work closely with the other people who ran for DPL. More generally, in projects and boards I tend to get involved in, I often find myself doing the things that nobody else does. I think the DPL role can be like that sometimes, too. I *do* believe it's important for the DPL to look at the big picture and see where connections can be made or where things are not going well. However, that doesn't mean that the DPL has to resolve all of these problems personally. Everyone who has worked with me knows that I'm not afraid to ask for little favours. ;-) As I mentioned in my platform, asking the right person directly can be very effective. I started working on a list of tasks that I'd like to see done. Once I have a list, the next step is to identify *who* can do those tasks. I suspect a lot of them don't actually have to be done by the DPL. > * 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.? We've had a Debian speakers list for many years, although I don't think it's well known or maintained: https://www.debian.org/events/speakers/ I'd definitely encourage other people to represent Debian, and sometimes ask people who attend conferences to be more visible about their affiliation (many of us wear many different hats). At the same time, as mentioned in my platform, there are cases where they want the DPL. (I've been invited as a speaker to at least one conference where the current DPL was not available and I was their next "best" choice because I was at least a former DPL ;) Resolving differences: it depends on the differences. If it's a technical difference, you might be able to refer it to the TC. If it involves violations of the CoC, it might be something for the anti-harassment team. I've been wondering if there should be a team to deal with more general social differences. I'm not sure right now, to be honest, but it's something I will think about some more. (In my experience, this is the most frustrating part of being DPL and so anything to make that better is obviously a good idea.). Expenditures: I don't mind doing this anyway and it gives a good overview of what's going on in the project. However, I'd like to be less reactive and more proactive, e.g. encouraging people to go to conferences, identifying where hardware might be useful, etc. (both of which can also be done by delegates, though). > * 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? Not right now, although my ideas of spending Debian's money might trigger some GRs. :-P Seriously though, I think the project needs some fundamental changes. It's possible we may require changes to some documents eventually, but we're not there -- first of all we need some honest conversations about who/what we want to be. (See the vision question later) > * 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? There have been various suggestions to replace the DPL with a team or a board. So far, I have been a bit sceptical of the merits, but I've started to see some merits in a board plus an executive director / DPL. This is another area I intend to think about more in order to form a clearer opinion. I currently don't plan to change anything about the DPL structure, but this may well change over the course of the year. While I'm not planning to form a DPL team, I intend to work closely with others (maybe as informal DPL helpers) and see where delegation is possible (see the first question). If elected, I'd certainly plan to work closely with some of the other DPL candidates. > * 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? We don't have a vision or 5 year plan apart from our overall goal to produce the best free OS out there. I believe that it would help to take a step back and to look at the big picture. Right now we're in this mode where we keep packages in Debian up-to-date and get out a release every few years, but I think we need to take more time to reflect to ask where we are and where we want to be. Sometimes you're blind because you're too involved -- you need to step back and look at it from the outside. So I think we should reflect and create a vision. This isn't necessarily a *technical* vision (e.g. "we want to see these features", although I believe release goals are important) but a vision of the project itself -- how are we operating, how can we improve the way we operate as a project (culture, technologies, etc). In summary, a vision for Debian, the project, is crucial. A vision for Debian, the OS, is important but less so because it depends on what people are going to work on (this is similar to Linus Torvalds saying he has no plan for Linux -- whatever features get added that people contribute). -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
