Questions concerning the DPL board

Hi,

after reading some of the rebuttals, I have some questions for
all the candidates (some questions make more sense for the candidates
who are also in the DPL board that I suggested, but others are free to
respond as if they were part of the board). When I look at those questions,
I have the feeling that they are "rhetoric", because most of the answers look
like self-evident for me. But since we have different opinions around, I
prefer to ask them so that it's clear for everybody.


Some of you feel that the DPL board brings another level of bureaucracy.
I think on the contrary, that it enables saner consensus-building than the
current discussion methods.

1/ Why do you think that alone you'll be able to take consensual decisions if
you fear that you're not able to convince a small set of open-minded
Debian developers?

2/ Do you agree that the proposed board is a good compromise for a group
representing Debian's diversity (in terms of opinions at least) while still
consisting mainly of open-minded people with good communication skills?


Some of you fear pushing forward your own projects if you don't have the
implicit project approval through your election.

3/ Aren't you convinced that your projects are good?

4/ Don't you think that if some of your projects are not good enough, the
discussion within the DPL board will make that clear?

5/ Which of your projects can't be done as member of the DPL board? Or
which of your projects do you believe will be blocked by a DPL board and
why?


Some of you believe that the decision-mechanism is going to introduce
delays. First of all, the DPL board has certainly many responsibilities
which do not need to make formal use of their powers (giving his opinion,
mediation, answering mails, responding to interviews, ...). In the few
cases, where a formal decisions is needed I see two case: the decision is
not problematic, someone takes it and announces it to the board. The other
board members have (let's say) 3 days to voice any opposition. If there's no
opposition, the decision is taken. Otherwise, it should go trough the
procedure outlined in my platform.
Thus I believe that we can adapt the working of the board to avoid most
bureaucratic problems.

6/ Can you give me concrete examples of projects that need to be decided
very quickly (< 3 days) where the DPL board would be a real problem?


7/ And a last question for sam, you say "I am a bit wary that his idea of
empowering people to do stuff might mean encouraging them to do it _alone_
or working around other teams, instead of _cooperating_.". How do you
reconciliate this with your own fears concerning the board? It looks like
_cooperating_ within a board is not your preferred course of action, you'd
rather take the responsibilities _alone_.


Thanks for your attention and your time.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:16:13PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > 1/ Why do you think that alone you'll be able to take consensual decisions if
> > > you fear that you're not able to convince a small set of open-minded
> > > Debian developers?
> >
> > It's not about being able to take consensual decisions; it's about the
> > fact that for a Debian Developer who's not a member of the board, having
> > a board to talk to when there's a problem takes a lot more effort than
> > having just one person (the DPL) to talk to.
>
> As I explained, you can bring up an issue to the board simply by
> convincing one member of the board to do it, you don't need to discuss
> with everybody if you don't want to.

There is a difference between bringing up an issue and having it
approved.

> On the contrary, it opens more possibilities of interactions with the
> DPL, since you don't have to rely on a single person but you can
> choose one out of a set (consider the case that the DPL elected is
> someone that you don't really like, then having choice is
> interesting).
>
> > Then there's also a bunch of procedures that need to be created in order
> > to simply be *able* to take decisions as a group.
>
> Sure. But will you as DPL take decisions without consulting anyone?

No, and that was exactly my point.

> I don't think so. The board is only formalizing a bit more who are
> your advisers and make sure that the advisers are known to the rest of
> the project. Those procedures do not get added, they replace an
> internal process of self-conviction that you have to follow anyway if
> you're DPL as an individual.

It's not unlikely for the DPL to decide whom to ask for feedback
depending on the issue at hand. With a board, you likely don't do that.

> > Sure, it's a lot easier to reach consensus when there's 10 people to
> > talk to rather than 1000 people; but I feel that's looking at it from
> > the wrong side. A proposed board *still* needs to listen to the group of
> > 1000 people to be able to form an opinion that is in the best interest
> > of the entire project, so you're not really solving anything.
>
> There's no way you can listen alone to 1000 people.

Sure; but then, having 10 people rather than just 1 isn't going to solve
that, either.

> Those 1000 persons are spread over 160 mailing list and you probably
> subscribe to one or two dozens of the mailing lists. With a board, you
> certainly have a broader coverage of the project.

I did not contest that.

[...]
> > > 2/ Do you agree that the proposed board is a good compromise for a
> > > group representing Debian's diversity (in terms of opinions at
> > > least) while still consisting mainly of open-minded people with
> > > good communication skills?
> >
> > No. I think doing so would only really be possible if Developers were to
> > align themselves in groups of likeminded people, much like political
> > parties.
>
> Huh, I was asking for comments on the actual composition of the board that
> I proposed... I never implied that the mere existence of a board
> guarantees a good representation of Debian's diversity.

Oh, okay.

Well, that might perhaps be the case, but it's not relevant to what I
think is a problem with the board, as I explained above.

> > > 3/ Aren't you convinced that your projects are good?
> >
> > Sure I am.
> >
> > However, it's not about what I think; it's about what the project thinks
> > is good. If I want to propose changes to our social culture, but most
> > people in the project think that's not necessary and that our social
> > culture is just fine, then who am I to go ahead and forcibly change
> > stuff anyway?
>
> If you're not elected, it doesn't mean that your platform is bad, simply
> that someone else platform's was preferred.

Our election method has ways to show the difference between "someone
else's platform was preferred" and "most people disliked your platform".
I will act according to the vote.

--
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org