On 11.11.2015 20:47, martin f krafft wrote: > Since then, we've seen a spectrum of problems, from the team unable > to make decision constantly deferring to the chairs and burning them > out, to there being a divide between chairs and some of the team, > bringing focus to the powers attributed by the more explicit > delegation put forth by Lucas.
Citation please. AFAIK most of problems were with you: lack of listening (chairs had ideas more similar to your, but you had prejudices, because you don't like thinking that you are not completely in charge) and disorganization (most of the requests to chairs were asked in hurry). I find worrying that you (and your proposal) ask trust from Debian, but without trusting Debian. So it is giving carte blanche, which on long term it could cause problems, also because the choice of conference are on technical side (venue size, accessibility, connection) and not about type of conference. OTOH I think you blamed the global team for blocking local team. > A respectful ambience in the team will mean that plenty people will > stick around to offer advice and oversight, without throwing new > people into bureaucratic swamps or getting too hung up in procedures > otherwise. Completely agree with respectful ambiance (but I still blame you, you insulted people, you stepped other other foot continuously, and seldom you respected team decision [which were not *equal* to your opinion]). For the second part. Are you sure any DebConf had bureaucracy? I think we were always doacracy. People did the work regardless of teams. All teams worked with much independence. Or do you have a concrete example? > In closing, I think creating a new delegation or reinstating an > older one isn't going to make the problems go away that caused us to > get to where we currently stand. Instead of a top-down perspective > on DebConf orga, we should embrace a lean organisation, and trust > and enable people to help Debian through their work. I think this was agree by all people: stop about meta discussions (organizational procedures), which nobody will follow (we are Debian!), and let's do the work. Work, methodology/structure and leadership ("true delegation") come from bottom, in a natural way. >From Debian we already have supervision from: auditors, trademarks, publicity, outreach, admin, ... and especially DPL, so we can work anarchically but with enough supervision from Debian not to embarrass Debian. For me the most important meta discussion is about the concept (and vision) of DebConf. It seems that you have a different view, but you have not yet wrote about your Vision of DebConf. Could you tell us more? My vision is: DebConf is Debian, it is a "steering conference", so Debian contributors can meet to set goals, solve problems,.. in general to make Debian going forward. So no need of huge public relation: our contributors will ask other contributors to come (really no need to attract attendees with earlier schedule and "important" talks). Probably we need a Conference for professional (as we noticed in DebConf15), but it should be a separate entity from the conference. I would like to have more DebConf in developing countries (but we need fancies hotels near airports for the professional conference). ciao cate _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team