Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi Charles, On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:51:44 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > I expect a term limit to increase rotation on the positions of power, > with the following benefits: > > - reduce the risk of burn-out of the delegates, > > - motivate fresh people to have the ambition to serve in these >positions, because it becomes predictable when driving seats become >available, > > - motivate the current delegates to put their own replacement as part >of their planning, making us more resilient to sudden (or chronic) >unavailabilities, > > - increase the chances that those of us who keep a strong involvement >over many years diversify their experience, knitting our different >subgroups into a more harmonious society. > > - increase our chances that challenging ideas accepted. Okay, thank you. I agree with all of above. > In brief, everything good (and everything bad) that "more turnover" is > expected to bring in most of social structures where we evolve outside > Debian. "Mixing" people is necessary to maintain its organization. And don't forget, "just only limiting" is not mixing. With "fresh blood" is what we want :) Then we need more information about current status of those works, we ask them to give "bits from" mails. -- Hideki Yamane
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Le Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 04:27:49PM +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : > > I'm sorry, but could you explain "what do you want to improve with > a term limit"? Good evening Hideki, I expect a term limit to increase rotation on the positions of power, with the following benefits: - reduce the risk of burn-out of the delegates, - motivate fresh people to have the ambition to serve in these positions, because it becomes predictable when driving seats become available, - motivate the current delegates to put their own replacement as part of their planning, making us more resilient to sudden (or chronic) unavailabilities, - increase the chances that those of us who keep a strong involvement over many years diversify their experience, knitting our different subgroups into a more harmonious society. - increase our chances that challenging ideas accepted. In brief, everything good (and everything bad) that "more turnover" is expected to bring in most of social structures where we evolve outside Debian. Cheers, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi, > What do you think of the reform of the Technical Committee that > introduced a limit to the time people can serve in, and would you > consider applying a similar policy to other positions of power in > Debian? I'm sorry, but could you explain "what do you want to improve with a term limit"? Well, just set term limit is not an ultimate solution, IMO. Without succession of knowledge and skill to new people, it just causes a discontinuity. -- Hideki Yamane
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi Charles On 2022/03/16 14:28, Charles Plessy wrote: thank you for running ! I have a question for you (and only you). Yay, thanks for the question! What do you think of the reform of the Technical Committee that introduced a limit to the time people can serve in, and would you consider applying a similar policy to other positions of power in Debian? For the Technical Committee, this seems to have worked well so far. Currently all the Officers in Debian (not sure if that would fit your definition of people in power) do have expiring terms, DPL and and Secretary are both annual, and CTTE as per your example (Officers are listed out on https://www.debian.org/intro/organization) I also think that when we re-structure DAM and CT (or whatever form that will take), that they should also be brought into the officers section. Should we vote for the members that fill the role that DAM/CT fills now? I can't give you a concrete answer there, but at least if we as a community don't approve about how well someone performs on there, then we're not stuck with them forever. For DAM/CT I think we'll have more answers once we've spent a lot more time on this topic. For some teams with lots of power, having a strict term limit might also be a bad idea, since you sometimes really want the skills of the people who have been around for a while. For this, I really like the FTP Masters do, they seem to be the only delegation who have different tiers of members, ie. FTP Masters, FTP Assistants and FTP Wizards. The FTP Wizards seem like a good way to keep some valuable people around for their historical knowledge. So to answer your question on whether I would consider applying a similar policy to these other positions, yes, certainly! I think expiry is one of the available tools we can use to make teams/delegations better. Voting is another, and tiered memberships yet another. There's probably a lot that we can explore, but I don't think this is best driven by the DPL, it needs to come from the teams and from the project members. Unfortunately, after two terms, I think any prospective DPL who thinks that they'll have time to actively drive all of this by themselves is in for some disappointment. So to further answer your question, I think we need some cultural shift to spend some dedicated (ideally in-person) time on project structure and procedures, so that DDs who care about various topics can come up with suggestions and then either the DPL rubber stamps it or we have a GR where necessary. To some degree I think this is happening, we're just in our second GR in recent months to make changes to our voting process, and we have a somewhat understandably (considering how much is happening right now) stalled discussion on the future of DAM/CT too, which I'm sure will pick up again, for those teams, I think that's the right time and place to figure out something that would work as best possible for everyone. I'm sorry for being a bit long-winded here, if it doesn't answer your question, then please shout :) -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi Ansgar, On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 10:12 AM Ansgar wrote: > > You only mention delegates which have a formally easy way to get > replaced: the project leader can just do so. I limited my statement to delegates because my constitutional powers end there. For other matters, I would be an advocate like you or everyone else. > Do you think that an Appointments Committee should also handle package > maintainership and should we have term limits for how long people can > maintain packages, in particular core packages like gcc, libc, dpkg, > apt, ...? While a project leader cannot charge the Appointments Committee to look at maintainers, the committee is free to make such recommendations. The statements would be political. They exert pressure but have no effect otherwise. Over time, you would witness a separation of powers in Debian. Meetings of the Appointments Committee would be open to the public. Anyone can comment on the proceedings. The committee would follow California's open meeting laws. [1] Personally, I am not sure a term limit for maintainers is appropriate. The idea also falls entirely outside the leader's powers. Please make your case with the Appointments Committee, or apply to become a member thereof. Then you can use the political weight of your office to initiate a referendum. Thank you for the tough question! Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better! [1] https://www.calcities.org/detail-pages/resource/open-public-v-a-guide-to-the-ralph-m.-brown-act
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi Felix, On Wed, 2022-03-16 at 09:45 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 5:28 AM Charles Plessy > wrote: > > > > What do you think of the reform of the Technical Committee that > > introduced a limit to the time people can serve in, and would you > > consider applying a similar policy to other positions of power in > > Debian? > > I am a big fan of term limits. [...] > When people remain in power for too long, they also become tone-deaf. [...] > I hope to find enough volunteers to help the project leader evaluate > future delegations. An Appointments Committee—with at least five but > no more than twelve members—would collect broad and public input. If > enough folks are willing to serve, our number of delegates would > swell > and still leave us with extra candidates. > > A future referendum could then introduce term limits for delegates, > but first we need a deeper pool of replacements ready to serve. You only mention delegates which have a formally easy way to get replaced: the project leader can just do so. But we have other positions of power: maintainership over packages as an example. In case of disagreement, the bar to change maintainers is higher than for changing delegates, but the Technical Committee can do so. Do you think that an Appointments Committee should also handle package maintainership and should we have term limits for how long people can maintain packages, in particular core packages like gcc, libc, dpkg, apt, ...? Ansgar
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi Charles, On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 5:28 AM Charles Plessy wrote: > > What do you think of the reform of the Technical Committee that > introduced a limit to the time people can serve in, and would you > consider applying a similar policy to other positions of power in > Debian? I am a big fan of term limits. In many Western societies, especially in the US, some politicians will not retire. Their Baby Boomer constituencies are strong, and the needs of younger generations are not represented. Housing prices are an example. When people remain in power for too long, they also become tone-deaf. They forget those whom they serve. On a societal level, stagnation follows. There are no new ideas, and the group loses its brilliance. Often, the young move away. The political consequences are grave. Younger candidates struggle to compete with long track records of incumbents. Most disastrously for the group, the pool of possible replacements dwindles. It takes a village to fix it. Here is my plan: I hope to find enough volunteers to help the project leader evaluate future delegations. An Appointments Committee—with at least five but no more than twelve members—would collect broad and public input. If enough folks are willing to serve, our number of delegates would swell and still leave us with extra candidates. A future referendum could then introduce term limits for delegates, but first we need a deeper pool of replacements ready to serve. Thank you for asking that valuable question! Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
On Wed, 2022-03-16 at 21:28 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I have a question for you (and only you). I'll ignore that ;-) > What do you think of the reform of the Technical Committee that > introduced a limit to the time people can serve in This was already introduced years ago: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_004 > and would you > consider applying a similar policy to other positions of power in > Debian? But I won't answer this. Ansgar
Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi all candidates, thank you for running ! I have a question for you (and only you). What do you think of the reform of the Technical Committee that introduced a limit to the time people can serve in, and would you consider applying a similar policy to other positions of power in Debian? Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
