[Debconf-team] Deadline (Re: Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation)
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:49:11PM +0200, Daniel Lange wrote: > Dear team, > Please contribute your ideas / changes / amendments within the next two > or three weeks. Edrz extended the deadline to 16.11.2015 so that we > should have sufficient time for discussion. I hope that we can come up > with one joint proposal for a delegation letter draft for the DPL from > DebConf as a whole. It's impossible for me to have extended a deadline that had not yet been announced. I don't consider it appropriate for the drafters to set a deadline nor for me to do so. Daniel mentioned the titanpad draft yesterday on irc around 20:30 UTC. AFAIK this was the first public mention that a draft was in progress. The titanpad timeline shows it has been discussed at least since 2015-10-08. By version 42 we have mention of a private email from Bernelle: https://titanpad.com/ep/pad/view/DC16-draft-delegation-proposal/rev.42 Before that it is impossible to tell how long this has been in the works. An undisclosed group have been corresponding in private about this draft for at least 12 days _and_ proposed to give anyone they excluded only 2 weeks to respond, contribute or create a counter proposal. You have given yourselves an unfair head start on anyone who might disagree with you. I objected to the 2 weeks and was told "it's a titanpad, change it" so I added 2 weeks, which is my sole contribution. Maybe 4 weeks from now is fine, maybe it's too long, maybe it's not long enough. A deadline needs to be set, but not by me and not by the drafters. -edrz (more to come in separate mails about transparancy and the actual substance of the draft(s)) ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Deadline (Re: Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation)
Am 20.10.2015 um 06:32 schrieb Eric Dantan Rzewnicki: It's impossible for me to have extended a deadline that had not yet been announced. I don't consider it appropriate for the drafters to set a deadline nor for me to do so. [discussion about SMTP on Debian.org] 2015-10-18 20:37 BTW (completely unrelated) ... There is a draft for a new DebConf delegation from the DPL in the works at https://titanpad.com/DC16-draft-delegation-proposal . I'll post to the ML tomorrow but if you have some time now, please review and change, amend or comment [...] 2015-10-19 14:19 it hasn't been discussed outside the titanpad. 2015-10-19 14:21 right. Hence I put it there yesterday as I planned to (and still plan) to send the announcement email today. 2015-10-19 14:21 It will (hopefully) be discussed in *future* team meetings etc. 2015-10-19 14:21 2 weeks is not long enough for people who weren't invited to participate previously to come up with an alternative proposal. 2015-10-19 14:21 this document is already 10 days old. 2015-10-19 14:21 well, then change it to four week 2015-10-19 14:22 I could care less as long as we have any deadline and stop the discussion at some pre-defined time so we have a chance to get somewhere 2015-10-19 14:22 (and not revolve endlessly) 2015-10-19 14:23 on that I agree. 2015-10-19 14:23 again, if you want three or four weeks please just change the Titanpad and leave a comment too, if you want to. All fine for me. 2015-10-19 14:23 done Before that it is impossible to tell how long this has been in the works. An undisclosed group have been corresponding in private about this draft for at least 12 days _and_ proposed to give anyone they excluded only 2 weeks to respond, contribute or create a counter proposal. You have given yourselves an unfair head start on anyone who might disagree with you. You complain for the sake of complaining. There is no fair or unfair here. I'm fine with any delegation proposal that prevents the inherent organizational issues we have seen during the chairs' time. These issues were discussed at length during DC15. And I'd like to say again: These are completely unrelated to the people that had the tough job of being a chair. So for me the analysis of the past is over and I organized a call to action (as nobody else did) to come up with a better proposal. Which is what you received now. I personally chose to not start discussions with a group as large as DebConf in the void but ask people I have discussed with before (so not you) to braindump and come up with proposals. You may have chosen differently but then you may be enjoying meta discussions, I do not. (more to come in separate mails about transparancy and the actual substance of the draft(s)) Please don't hijack the thread with another meta discussion. I'm looking forward to any contribution that improve the proposals. Daniel ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
