Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Brian Gupta]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:12 PM Paul Wise  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:30 PM Jonathan Carter wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> Thanks for the info, those details are interesting.
>
> > Non-uploading DD's existed at the time, I just had no interest in
> > becoming a non-uploading DD when it was already my intent to become an
> > uploading DD.
>
> I don't think any one membership state should be perceived as "final",
> people gain and relinquish both upload privileges and membership
> (going from non-member to uploading DD and then non-uploading DD etc).
> Also, I assume that non-member -> uploading DD and non-member ->
> non-uploading DD -> uploading DD are basically the same amount of
> time/work. I suppose the latter even has the advantage of splitting up
> that time/work over time. I think I like the idea of de-coupling the
> membership from upload privileges even more somehow.
>

I 100% concur, and I'm very happy you pointed this out. I'd love to work 
with you (and whomever else would like to help) to figure out how to do as 
you say and decouple membership from upload privileges even more.

> I was involved when the DPL and DebConf people talked about it,
> > they simply agreed that it's not an issue and that you don't have to be
> > a DD in order to be on the DebConf committee.
>
> It sounds like the DPL (and others) at the time wasn't aware of the
> constitutional issue brought up earlier in the thread.
>
> > TBH I'm having trouble following your line of questioning and exactly
> > what you're concerned about, if I missed something, please ask again and
> > keep it to one question per paragraph.
>
> I'm simply probing why we get into the situation where we get people
> who are not yet members but we want them to be more central to the
> Debian organisation than most members are. My motivation is that this
> situation has always seemed strange to me so I want to understand it
> better. This is getting off-topic so this will be my last mail in the
> thread.

I wasn't aware of how widespread this has become. I've found at least 
2-3 teams that have this case. I think we can resolve this, as most
of the teams in question don't just consist of non-members, so the 
simple short term fix for the next DPL might be to make it clear that
non-members are listed as team members but not delegates, and long term
work with the teams to encourage those folks who feel they share the
project's values, to work towoards membership. If elected to DPL I
commit to this path.

> -- 
> bye,
> pabs
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
>
>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:12 PM Paul Wise  wrote:On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:30 PM Jonathan Carter wrote:

> ...

Thanks for the info, those details are interesting.

> Non-uploading DD's existed at the time, I just had no interest in
> becoming a non-uploading DD when it was already my intent to become an
> uploading DD.

I don't think any one membership state should be perceived as "final",
people gain and relinquish both upload privileges and membership
(going from non-member to uploading DD and then non-uploading DD etc).
Also, I assume that non-member -> uploading DD and non-member ->
non-uploading DD -> uploading DD are basically the same amount of
time/work. I suppose the latter even has the advantage of splitting up
that time/work over time. I think I like the idea of de-coupling the
membership from upload privileges even more somehow.I 100% concur, and I'm very happy you pointed this out. I'd love to work with you (and whomever else would like to help) to figure out how to do as you say and decouple membership from upload privileges even more.
> I was involved when the DPL and DebConf people talked about it,
> they simply agreed that it's not an issue and that you don't have to be
> a DD in order to be on the DebConf committee.

It sounds like the DPL (and others) at the time wasn't aware of the
constitutional issue brought up earlier in the thread.

> TBH I'm having trouble following your line of questioning and exactly
> what you're concerned about, if I missed something, please ask again and
> keep it to one question per paragraph.

I'm simply probing why we get into the situation where we get people
who are not yet members but we want them to be more central to the
Debian organisation than most members are. My motivation is that this
situation has always seemed strange to me so I want to understand it
better. This is getting off-topic so this will be my last mail in the
thread.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise




signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to Brian: Why do you need to be DPL to set up foundations?

[Luke Faraone]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:53 PM Brian Gupta  wrote:
> I will reiterate this before the election, but people do have choices when
> voting.
>
> 1) If you want Foundations, and want me as DPL, please rank me the highest.
>
> 2) If you want Foundations, but don't want me as DPL, please just put your
> favorite candidate(s) above me, but please do place me above "None of the
> Above".
>
> 3) If you don't want Debian Foundations rank me below "None of the Above".

Concurring with zigo and others: I don't think the DPL election should
be a substitute for a GR. If you want a foundation, gain consensus and
propose a GR, but I won't evaluate DPL candidates on that basis.

-- 
Luke Faraone;; Debian & Ubuntu Developer; Sugar Labs; MIT SIPB
lfaraone on irc.[freenode,oftc].net -- https://luke.wf/ohhello
PGP fprint: 8C82 3DED 10AA 8041 639E  1210 5ACE 8D6E 0C14 A470

Re: Question to Brian: Why do you need to be DPL to set up foundations?

[Brian Gupta]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:43 AM Thomas Goirand  wrote:

> On 3/17/20 4:10 AM, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > 1) By making it my platform, it should be a much lighter-weight method
> >for people to express their opinions than a GR. If this proves
> >contentious, I can always withdraw my candidacy rather than push
> >through a tough vote that splits the community. (In this case, I'd
> >rather back off and take however long it takes to build a rough
> >consensus.)
> > 
> > 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require
> >any changes to the constitution
> > 
> > 3) As I alluded, it would really only be practical with the explicit
> >support of the DPL.  Being DPL would guarantee that support.
> > 
> > 4) It gives project members options on how they vote. If I am elected
> >DPL, that would likely be a clear sign the project supports my
> >proposal. If I was ranked below "None of the above", that's another
> >clear message. Finally, if most people ranked me above "None of the
> >above, even if I wasn't first choice, I'd assume that as a signal of
> >support for the proposal and would try to work with the elected DPL
> >to implement the proposal.
>
> Brian,
>
> Thanks for bringing the topic of a Debian foundation, and highlighting
> the past problems with SPI (I kind of was shocked to read about the
> paypal account, I somehow missed what happened...).
>

If I wrote it in a way that you found shocking, I did not intend for it to 
be. SPI raised a valid concern when looked at from the point of view of an 
organization that is home for over 40 projects. They wouldn't be doing 
their jobs if they continued to allow a single project special-treatment. 

When I first heard about their concerns, I couldn't understand why SPI felt 
the need to make the change, considering the long history between Debian 
and SPI. As time passed, I came to understand SPI's point of view and came
to agree, and expect that if I had been in their role, I would have ended up
with the same thoughts.

I regret, that to some, this appears to be an SPI vs Debian debate. It is 
not. I expect the relationship between SPI to continue into the indefinite
future.

This is about the fact that Debian has needs that require "special-casing",
that will be difficult to fulfill from an organization that isn't singularly
focused on Debian.

> Sorry for this, but I very much don't think it's a good idea to mix a a
> DPL election, and assume that people's votes will reflect their will to
> setup a foundation or not. Maybe a lot of people will prefer candidate X
> or Y before you, but will still would like to move ahead with the
> foundation idea. The same way, some may like you, but may not like the
> foundation thing.
>
> Moreover, as this is the main thing if your platform, we don't have a
> clue about the rest of your intentions, and how you see the DPL job.
>
> I would have very much prefer if you had discuss this as a separate
> topic, and made sure that the next future DPL would support you, or if
> you nominated yourself for the DPL election, and voiced your intend to
> make a GR about creating a foundation (but not make it the only topic of
> your platform).
>
> Anyway, thanks for this topic again, and I really hope you make the
> foundation thing happen, being the DPL or not. :)
>

I will reiterate this before the election, but people do have choices when 
voting. 

1) If you want Foundations, and want me as DPL, please rank me the highest.

2) If you want Foundations, but don't want me as DPL, please just put your 
favorite candidate(s) above me, but please do place me above "None of the 
Above".

3) If you don't want Debian Foundations rank me below "None of the Above". 

The only option I am asking people not to consider is electing me as DPL 
without a mandate to work on the Foundations. If you are opposed to the
formation of Debian Formations, I'd ask that you please rank me below
"None of the Above".

Cheers,
Brian
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:43 AM Thomas Goirand  wrote:On 3/17/20 4:10 AM, Brian Gupta wrote:
> 1) By making it my platform, it should be a much lighter-weight method
>    for people to express their opinions than a GR. If this proves
>    contentious, I can always withdraw my candidacy rather than push
>    through a tough vote that splits the community. (In this case, I'd
>    rather back off and take however long it takes to build a rough
>    consensus.)
> 
> 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require
>    any changes to the constitution
> 
> 3) As I alluded, it would really only be practical with the explicit
>    support of the DPL.  Being DPL would guarantee that support.
> 
> 4) It gives project members options on how they vote. If I am elected
>    DPL, that would likely be a clear sign the project supports my
>    proposal. If I was ranked below "None of the above", that's another
>    clear message. Finally, if 

Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Paul Wise]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:30 PM Jonathan Carter wrote:

> ...

Thanks for the info, those details are interesting.

> Non-uploading DD's existed at the time, I just had no interest in
> becoming a non-uploading DD when it was already my intent to become an
> uploading DD.

I don't think any one membership state should be perceived as "final",
people gain and relinquish both upload privileges and membership
(going from non-member to uploading DD and then non-uploading DD etc).
Also, I assume that non-member -> uploading DD and non-member ->
non-uploading DD -> uploading DD are basically the same amount of
time/work. I suppose the latter even has the advantage of splitting up
that time/work over time. I think I like the idea of de-coupling the
membership from upload privileges even more somehow.

> I was involved when the DPL and DebConf people talked about it,
> they simply agreed that it's not an issue and that you don't have to be
> a DD in order to be on the DebConf committee.

It sounds like the DPL (and others) at the time wasn't aware of the
constitutional issue brought up earlier in the thread.

> TBH I'm having trouble following your line of questioning and exactly
> what you're concerned about, if I missed something, please ask again and
> keep it to one question per paragraph.

I'm simply probing why we get into the situation where we get people
who are not yet members but we want them to be more central to the
Debian organisation than most members are. My motivation is that this
situation has always seemed strange to me so I want to understand it
better. This is getting off-topic so this will be my last mail in the
thread.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Paul

On 2020/03/19 15:19, Paul Wise wrote:
> I'm saying that when we think someone deserves to be a delegate (or
> join a core team), then at minimum they need to go through the
> (non-uploading) DD process before becoming a delegate. If we trust
> them to be a delegate, it would be weird to not trust them enough to
> be a member.

Yes, the above part is the part we definitely agreed on.

> Is there something about the membership process (or the status itself)
> that makes potential delegates (and their advocates) want to skip the
> process or avoid being members?

I don't think so. In my case, I was persuing the path of DM -> DD.
Adding the extra step of DM -> DM and Non-uploading DD -> Uploading DD
would probably not have happened much faster and probably would just
have wasted a few people's time. I think at the time (2016) there were
also some problems if you wanted to be both a DM and a non-uploading DD
so I skipped that complication.

But yes, in general, I think the time it takes is why people don't
immediately go for it. That's not too say the process is too long or
cumbersome, even if it's just a 2 day process, when you're neck-deep in
DebConf matters, you're going to put your focus there until you have
some time to focus on the NM process. In Bernelle's case, she's applying
for non-uploading DD and is going through the NM process so it's again
just a time thing, and I think it's just one of those things that's not
really a big deal.

> Did your skipping of the membership process before being a delegate
> happen before the non-uploading DD vote or before the non-uploading DD
> process was well established? Was it because of the historical
> perception of separation between Debian and DebConf? Did you perceive
> the process to be heavyweight? Did the DPL at the time and the DebConf
> folks just not think about this? Were there other factors I'm failing
> to think of?

Non-uploading DD's existed at the time, I just had no interest in
becoming a non-uploading DD when it was already my intent to become an
uploading DD. Back in 2016 we were already doing a lot of work to bridge
more of those historical disconnects between Debian and Debconf, so that
wasn't a factor at all. Again, I didn't perceive the process as
heavyweight per sé, but I was doing a lot of different Debian work and
did become a DD 7 months later. I know it's not a record time but I
didn't feel a need to rush it either. No one ever had a problem with me
being a non-DD on the DebConf committee and it wasn't any kind of secret
either. I was involved when the DPL and DebConf people talked about it,
they simply agreed that it's not an issue and that you don't have to be
a DD in order to be on the DebConf committee.

TBH I'm having trouble following your line of questioning and exactly
what you're concerned about, if I missed something, please ask again and
keep it to one question per paragraph.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Question to Brian: Why do you need to be DPL to set up foundations?

[Luca Filipozzi]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:47:25PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Thomas Goirand  [2020-03-19 14:43]:
> > highlighting the past problems with SPI (I kind of was shocked to
> > read about the paypal account, I somehow missed what happened...).
> 
> I think this might be a misunderstanding.
> 
> SPI does not want get rid of PayPal.
> 
> The problem is that there is one SPI PayPal account for Debian and one
> SPI PayPal account for all other SPI projects.  This kind of special
> casing for Debian is something SPI would like to resolve in some way;
> there are no plans of removing PayPal.
> 
> (I don't speak for SPI, etc)

Indeed, the comments regarding paypal are a gross (in my view)
mischaracterization in Brian's platform. See [1] for what I prevsiouly
wrote on that topic.  His other comments aren't entirely accurate,
either (in my view).

Sam's comments regarding legal representation and insurance for project
leaders are more on-point: we are working on the former and have not
discussed the latter.

[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2020/03/msg00021.html

-- 
Luca Filipozzi

Re: Question to Brian: Why do you need to be DPL to set up foundations?

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Thomas Goirand  [2020-03-19 14:43]:
> highlighting the past problems with SPI (I kind of was shocked to
> read about the paypal account, I somehow missed what happened...).

I think this might be a misunderstanding.

SPI does not want get rid of PayPal.

The problem is that there is one SPI PayPal account for Debian and one
SPI PayPal account for all other SPI projects.  This kind of special
casing for Debian is something SPI would like to resolve in some way;
there are no plans of removing PayPal.

(I don't speak for SPI, etc)
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

Re: Question to Brian: Why do you need to be DPL to set up foundations?

[Thomas Goirand]

On 3/17/20 4:10 AM, Brian Gupta wrote:
> 1) By making it my platform, it should be a much lighter-weight method
>for people to express their opinions than a GR. If this proves
>contentious, I can always withdraw my candidacy rather than push
>through a tough vote that splits the community. (In this case, I'd
>rather back off and take however long it takes to build a rough
>consensus.)
> 
> 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require
>any changes to the constitution
> 
> 3) As I alluded, it would really only be practical with the explicit
>support of the DPL.  Being DPL would guarantee that support.
> 
> 4) It gives project members options on how they vote. If I am elected
>DPL, that would likely be a clear sign the project supports my
>proposal. If I was ranked below "None of the above", that's another
>clear message. Finally, if most people ranked me above "None of the
>above, even if I wasn't first choice, I'd assume that as a signal of
>support for the proposal and would try to work with the elected DPL
>to implement the proposal.

Brian,

Thanks for bringing the topic of a Debian foundation, and highlighting
the past problems with SPI (I kind of was shocked to read about the
paypal account, I somehow missed what happened...).

Sorry for this, but I very much don't think it's a good idea to mix a a
DPL election, and assume that people's votes will reflect their will to
setup a foundation or not. Maybe a lot of people will prefer candidate X
or Y before you, but will still would like to move ahead with the
foundation idea. The same way, some may like you, but may not like the
foundation thing.

Moreover, as this is the main thing if your platform, we don't have a
clue about the rest of your intentions, and how you see the DPL job.

I would have very much prefer if you had discuss this as a separate
topic, and made sure that the next future DPL would support you, or if
you nominated yourself for the DPL election, and voiced your intend to
make a GR about creating a foundation (but not make it the only topic of
your platform).

Anyway, thanks for this topic again, and I really hope you make the
foundation thing happen, being the DPL or not. :)

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Paul Wise]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jonathan Carter wrote:

> I re-read the above, my understanding is that Paul made a statement
> about the non-dd process being sufficient for new delegates that should
> become members, and then I agreed and re-affirmed that that should be at
> least the bare minimum. I'm still not sure which question you think I
> dodged, but if either you or Paul could perhaps rephrase the question
> that I missed, then I'll give it another shot.

I'm saying that when we think someone deserves to be a delegate (or
join a core team), then at minimum they need to go through the
(non-uploading) DD process before becoming a delegate. If we trust
them to be a delegate, it would be weird to not trust them enough to
be a member.

Is there something about the membership process (or the status itself)
that makes potential delegates (and their advocates) want to skip the
process or avoid being members?

Did your skipping of the membership process before being a delegate
happen before the non-uploading DD vote or before the non-uploading DD
process was well established? Was it because of the historical
perception of separation between Debian and DebConf? Did you perceive
the process to be heavyweight? Did the DPL at the time and the DebConf
folks just not think about this? Were there other factors I'm failing
to think of?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2020/03/19 14:00, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter  writes:
> 
> Jonathan> On 2020/03/19 12:39, Paul Wise wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:
> >> 
> >>> My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates
> >>> could be project members, I understand your concern, but often
> >>> it's best to be willing to work with people who are willing to
> >>> do the work.
> >>> 
> >>> I would suggest some minimal vetting for outsiders who become
> >>> delegates, for example, just like when someone gets access to
> >>> Debian machines have to agree to the DMUP, delegates should
> >>> agree to uphold our community standards (like the CoC for
> >>> example).
> >> 
> >> I think if we can trust them to be delegates then we can trust
> >> them to be Debian project members. For most potential delegates
> >> who aren't yet members, I assume the non-uploading DD process
> >> would be minimal enough.
> 
> Jonathan> For sure, going through the non-uploading DD process
> Jonathan> should remain a bare minimum for someone who wants to
> Jonathan> become a project member.
> 
> 
> You seem to be dodging the question a bit.
> Paul is talking about the link between delegate and member.
> You are focusing about the link between non-uploading process and
> member.
> I realize it's convenient to focus on that link because it's the side of
> the equation that is less controversial, but it isn't really the area
> Paul and Enrico have been asking about.

I re-read the above, my understanding is that Paul made a statement
about the non-dd process being sufficient for new delegates that should
become members, and then I agreed and re-affirmed that that should be at
least the bare minimum. I'm still not sure which question you think I
dodged, but if either you or Paul could perhaps rephrase the question
that I missed, then I'll give it another shot.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Sam Hartman]

Speaking as an individual.

> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter  writes:

Jonathan> On 2020/03/19 12:39, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:
>> 
>>> My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates
>>> could be project members, I understand your concern, but often
>>> it's best to be willing to work with people who are willing to
>>> do the work.
>>> 
>>> I would suggest some minimal vetting for outsiders who become
>>> delegates, for example, just like when someone gets access to
>>> Debian machines have to agree to the DMUP, delegates should
>>> agree to uphold our community standards (like the CoC for
>>> example).
>> 
>> I think if we can trust them to be delegates then we can trust
>> them to be Debian project members. For most potential delegates
>> who aren't yet members, I assume the non-uploading DD process
>> would be minimal enough.

Jonathan> For sure, going through the non-uploading DD process
Jonathan> should remain a bare minimum for someone who wants to
Jonathan> become a project member.


You seem to be dodging the question a bit.
Paul is talking about the link between delegate and member.
You are focusing about the link between non-uploading process and
member.
I realize it's convenient to focus on that link because it's the side of
the equation that is less controversial, but it isn't really the area
Paul and Enrico have been asking about.

Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2020/03/19 12:39, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:
> 
>> My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates could be
>> project members, I understand your concern, but often it's best to be
>> willing to work with people who are willing to do the work.
>>
>> I would suggest some minimal vetting for outsiders who become delegates,
>> for example, just like when someone gets access to Debian machines have
>> to agree to the DMUP, delegates should  agree to uphold our community
>> standards (like the CoC for example).
> 
> I think if we can trust them to be delegates then we can trust them to
> be Debian project members. For most potential delegates who aren't yet
> members, I assume the non-uploading DD process would be minimal
> enough.

For sure, going through the non-uploading DD process should remain a
bare minimum for someone who wants to become a project member.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Question to all: Outreach

[Paul Wise]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:

> My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates could be
> project members, I understand your concern, but often it's best to be
> willing to work with people who are willing to do the work.
>
> I would suggest some minimal vetting for outsiders who become delegates,
> for example, just like when someone gets access to Debian machines have
> to agree to the DMUP, delegates should  agree to uphold our community
> standards (like the CoC for example).

I think if we can trust them to be delegates then we can trust them to
be Debian project members. For most potential delegates who aren't yet
members, I assume the non-uploading DD process would be minimal
enough.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise