Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:40:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Jeroen - you want to push for a code of conduct. You want to write > "insider reports". You want to act as a mediator. These tasks do not > require you to be DPL. Why have you not been doing them for the past > year? I've been talking with some listmasters about code of conduct, and followed Enrico's work with the Community Guidelines. Insider reports is something that I think is useful to start, that's why I'm campaigning with it. I've done some mediation, but that's something that really benefits from being in a position to do so one way or the other. In general, I've been given thought and working on these issues, with varying results. I'd like to continue this work, which would be easier being DPL (but not impossible without being DPL). Getting world peace also doesn't require being DPL, and many people try, but just being secretary of the UN makes you more effective. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:41:42AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after > > all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the > > constitutional issues, it was clear that there was some bit of angst > > among DD's during last year's campaigning period about that very issue. > > You wouldn't have been assuming leadership of the project in any formal > manner. However, you've made it clear that you think that the DPL team > needs leadership - you had the opportunity to provide coordination and > make sure that things got done, but chose not to. I tried, by pushing for meetings etc. However, I do not think this is really something a non-DPL can actually enforce in such a team. The concept is new and the team members had varying views and expectations on how exactly the team should and should not work. > > So, concluding, just because I wasn't DPL. Similarly, if you'd elect me, > > you'll get me, and not possibly maybe one of the DPL team members whose > > names I'll announce in a few days. I'll still allow the DPL team members > > to pick up things they want to pick up as far as they can do so without > > special privileges, as they see fit. > > But surely the point of a team is for people to be able to pick up the > slack if someone can't cope? No, the point is to assist and enable the DPL to be more effective. The team can help in periods of reduced availability, but cannot replace the DPL if he is absent or not leading the team. > If you believe that the DPL should still be a single point of failure, > what's the point in electing you? The DPL remains a single point of failure. With a team, the DPL will cope at least as good as without, and probably much better. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after > all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the > constitutional issues, it was clear that there was some bit of angst > among DD's during last year's campaigning period about that very issue. You wouldn't have been assuming leadership of the project in any formal manner. However, you've made it clear that you think that the DPL team needs leadership - you had the opportunity to provide coordination and make sure that things got done, but chose not to. > So, concluding, just because I wasn't DPL. Similarly, if you'd elect me, > you'll get me, and not possibly maybe one of the DPL team members whose > names I'll announce in a few days. I'll still allow the DPL team members > to pick up things they want to pick up as far as they can do so without > special privileges, as they see fit. But surely the point of a team is for people to be able to pick up the slack if someone can't cope? If you believe that the DPL should still be a single point of failure, what's the point in electing you? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:40:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > I think this is a poor response. There were several issues that the DPL > team could have dealt with and didn't - it shouldn't have taken access > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to realise that, for instance, people had concerns over > ftp-master communication, consensus within the project, appropriate > reactions to anti-social behaviour and so on. Well, you can't say that I didn't try: http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ It just hasn't been marketed as a DPL team effort, because it's mainly been my work, it started before the DPL team and will continue after it. But input from being inside the DPL team was indeed useful to bring some parts of it together. Actually it hasn't been marketed much at all, since parts of it still need substantial work. The parts that are most important to me (like the 4 main points) are already there, though. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Ignoring the question whether Branden was actually providing > > insufficient leadership: > > > > I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after > > all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the > > Hmm, but that's how a team usually works in Debian, most teams are not > elected and organise themselves. Many have a "leader" personality who > is trying to get things done. Right, and the *leader* was supposed to be Branden. Of course, the team could have tried to balance Branden's inavailability, but I understand that it's a difficult thing to do, in particular since that was the first year that a DPL team was existing. The DPL team is here to support the current DPL, not to replace it. Would I be part of a DPL team, I'd like to have the consent of the DPL to do something in the name of the DPL team. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:33:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be "We > > didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year" and > > justification for that seems to be "I'll be in charge instead of > > Branden". If that's the case, why did you not step up to provide > > leadership within the team when it became clear that Branden wasn't > > providing what you considered to be insufficient leadership? > > Ignoring the question whether Branden was actually providing > insufficient leadership: > > I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after > all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the Hmm, but that's how a team usually works in Debian, most teams are not elected and organise themselves. Many have a "leader" personality who is trying to get things done. Regards, Joey -- It's time to close the windows. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:33:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be "We > didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year" and > justification for that seems to be "I'll be in charge instead of > Branden". If that's the case, why did you not step up to provide > leadership within the team when it became clear that Branden wasn't > providing what you considered to be insufficient leadership? Ignoring the question whether Branden was actually providing insufficient leadership: I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the constitutional issues, it was clear that there was some bit of angst among DD's during last year's campaigning period about that very issue. It is the elected project leader who's in charge of a team named after that position. Without having such an amount of trust from the DPL to actually plainly directly execute leadership on the DPL's behalf, that'd be a very awkward if not dangerous situation -- I'm not a clone of Branden, and cannot and don't want to take action exactly like he would do. So, concluding, just because I wasn't DPL. Similarly, if you'd elect me, you'll get me, and not possibly maybe one of the DPL team members whose names I'll announce in a few days. I'll still allow the DPL team members to pick up things they want to pick up as far as they can do so without special privileges, as they see fit. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060307 20:33]: >> Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be "We >> didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year" and >> justification for that seems to be "I'll be in charge instead of >> Branden". If that's the case, why did you not step up to provide >> leadership within the team when it became clear that Branden wasn't >> providing what you considered to be insufficient leadership? > > because e.g. they didn't had access to [EMAIL PROTECTED] And also the team > wasn't constructed that way. Andreas (whose plans I know a bit better > for obvious reasons :) wrote in his platform: I think this is a poor response. There were several issues that the DPL team could have dealt with and didn't - it shouldn't have taken access to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to realise that, for instance, people had concerns over ftp-master communication, consensus within the project, appropriate reactions to anti-social behaviour and so on. Anyone within Debian could have done something about these issues. People in the DPL team could probably have done more. Jeroen has claimed that he will work to solve them, but (other than initiating a couple of polls) has done little to do so so far. So, to rephrase my question more bluntly: Jeroen - you want to push for a code of conduct. You want to write "insider reports". You want to act as a mediator. These tasks do not require you to be DPL. Why have you not been doing them for the past year? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060307 20:33]: > Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be "We > didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year" and > justification for that seems to be "I'll be in charge instead of > Branden". If that's the case, why did you not step up to provide > leadership within the team when it became clear that Branden wasn't > providing what you considered to be insufficient leadership? because e.g. they didn't had access to [EMAIL PROTECTED] And also the team wasn't constructed that way. Andreas (whose plans I know a bit better for obvious reasons :) wrote in his platform: | * Whenever possible, tasks are delegated to the most appropriate | team member. | * It is a real team. Each member can represent it and communicate the | team's viewpoint above personal viewpoints. | * [...] | | A key issue to the success of the team is the "active delegation". I | feel this has been under-utilized during the last term and left the rest | of the team decapitated when the DPL was not at hand. [...] I think this part of the platform describes some valuable differences (and is one reasons why I support Andreas this year). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be "We didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year" and justification for that seems to be "I'll be in charge instead of Branden". If that's the case, why did you not step up to provide leadership within the team when it became clear that Branden wasn't providing what you considered to be insufficient leadership? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 03:32:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > (Again, campaigning period doesn't start until Sunday. Please feel free > to ignore this until then) Platforms are up (except one), so... > This is about the DPL team. Andreas, your platform was quite heavily > based on it. Jeroen, I understand that it's something that you were > heavily involved in. According to Andreas's platform, it was supposed > to: > > * distribute workload, avoiding burn-out and problems related to > real-world unavailability of individual developers; > > Did this happen? Branden has been fairly noticably absent in terms of > providing leadership - queries to [EMAIL PROTECTED] have gone unanswered for > long periods of time. I cannot make generic statements for responses to leader@, as they were not automatically forwarded. As I wrote in my platform[1]: | An important thing I learned is that in order for such a team to work | effectively, it is required that the whole team is involved in (at least | informed of) all what's going on, and that an agenda is maintained and | enforced, and ensuring that assigned (delegated) tasks are fulfilled. I notice I didn't write it explicitly, but I will request leader@ mail to be forwarded to the full team -- if people have issues that really should be 'for my eyes only', [EMAIL PROTECTED] would work. Of course I will announce so to d-d-a, so that people know there's a slightly broader distribution of such mail. As to your question of workload distribution, there was a bit of that, but not really many numerous issues -- a number of very hard issues were worked on with the whole team though. > * keep regularly in touch with a larger part of the project, to be more > proactive about difficulties, and detect them earlier; > > The DPL team's communication sucked. What would you do differently, and > how would you do it? I'll have reserved a few hours each week to do exclusively leader-type things. I'll simply put on the team's year-agenda to have the 4 promised public reviews, which will at the bare minimum include what has happened. I choose the interval carefully to be often enough, but still not too frequent to have awkward issues like "eh, nothing happened this week, we'll keep silent". In addition, you'll hear from me directly via the "insider reports", with which I'll also try to regularly choose areas where there was DPL (team) involvement. Other than the 4 reports, I will send mail to d-d-a or whatever appropriate list when something significant happens, for example, w.r.t. the Code-of-Conduct installment process. > * help build broader consensus by functioning as a 'chair' in Debian; > > This didn't really happen either, did it? How would you make sure it > did next year? Individual DPL team member contributions did help a bit, but well, not very successfully. I'm afraid the state of the lists is such that building consensus merely by providing insightful mails (a significant number of people is providing insightful comments to threads, but it's hard to find them among all the noise). In a way, my view was too optimistic. By improving the atmosphere and productivity of the lists in general, I believe it will be better possible for consensus being reached, without per se direct consensus-building by the DPL team members, but because *anyone* can help finding a good solution. A compromise can best be found by those that are intimately familiar with the subject in question. > * make sure that decisions that need to be made are really made, even > though that means to keep track of a lot of things, takes time and > perhaps requires to be in multiple places at the same time; > > What would you say are the most important decisions that were made by > the DPL team this year? How many of them could not have been made > without the DPL team? You misunderstood the point, it was about the practice of discussions turning around in rounds without yielding a conclusion. When I noticed the nvi vs vim discussion wasn't going anywhere, I started a poll about it, as I did with the maintainer field issue for derivates. Such decisions shouldn't be made by any DPL or DPL team, but by the respective responsibles. I still need to send prods to see that both of those issues to a resolution of some sorts now that discussion faded away on both and there's some view on what people think. > * have the most appropriate person be responsible for their areas of > expertise. Everyone has unique talents and motivations which make > certain tasks more enjoyable for them than for others and lets them deal > with them more efficiently. > > Who were the members of the DPL team? What areas were they responsible > for? If you retain the DPL team, would you make any changes? Branden Robinson, Steve Langasek, Bdale Garbee, Enrico Zini, Andreas Schuldei, Benjamin Mako Hill, and myself. There was no strict division of labour, but Steve was involved in those times things were about Release and r
Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
(Again, campaigning period doesn't start until Sunday. Please feel free to ignore this until then) This is about the DPL team. Andreas, your platform was quite heavily based on it. Jeroen, I understand that it's something that you were heavily involved in. According to Andreas's platform, it was supposed to: * distribute workload, avoiding burn-out and problems related to real-world unavailability of individual developers; Did this happen? Branden has been fairly noticably absent in terms of providing leadership - queries to [EMAIL PROTECTED] have gone unanswered for long periods of time. * keep regularly in touch with a larger part of the project, to be more proactive about difficulties, and detect them earlier; The DPL team's communication sucked. What would you do differently, and how would you do it? * help build broader consensus by functioning as a 'chair' in Debian; This didn't really happen either, did it? How would you make sure it did next year? * make sure that decisions that need to be made are really made, even though that means to keep track of a lot of things, takes time and perhaps requires to be in multiple places at the same time; What would you say are the most important decisions that were made by the DPL team this year? How many of them could not have been made without the DPL team? * have the most appropriate person be responsible for their areas of expertise. Everyone has unique talents and motivations which make certain tasks more enjoyable for them than for others and lets them deal with them more efficiently. Who were the members of the DPL team? What areas were they responsible for? If you retain the DPL team, would you make any changes? A couple of the implementation details: * The team meets regularly and frequently (weekly, up to 1h), to discuss new issues and review ongoing tasks. This seemed to be dropped pretty quickly. Do you think that was the right decision? * Public minutes of private meetings are made available where discretion allows; likewise, a public agenda is made available in advance listing all non-sensitive agenda items, in order to allow and invite public discussion and public feedback before decisions are made. This never really happened. Do you think that was the right decision? Why did somebody have to notice that DPL team activity reports had stopped some time ago before anybody on the team publically admitted this? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
