Re: Call for vote: Impeachment of the president [was: Re: new maintainers]

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

We need to trim the cc list down on this thread folks. I think that this
discussion is both necessary and productive, but the volume produced by
the cc list is unnecessary. I am getting between 3 and 5 coppies of each
and every posting in this thread. Everyone in the conversation is
listening to debian-private, so let's keep the politics local. In general
anything coppied to debian-private or debian-devel need not ever be
coppied to debian-board. Board members are responsible for reading the
lists.

I have more to say below (on particular topics) but, of course, you don't
have to read it ;-)

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:

> 'Dominik Kubla wrote:'
> >
> >>>>>> Dale Scheetz writes:
> >
> >> The board is currently charged with "determining a framework for
> >> decision making" in the form of a corporation that can act as an
> >> umbrella under which the Debian Development Project can operate. The
> >> board may be empowered by this framework to make policy decisions,
> >> however, I would hope that that framework includes the membership
> >> at-large in the decision making process. Currently the board has
> >> given this power to Bruce when it pertains to the day to day
> >> operation of the project.
> >
> >Which he said he has turned over to Dan Quinlan.  All this shifting of
> >power is doing nothing but setting up smoke screens.  Who is
> >responsible for what? And where does their responsibility end?  I am
> >sick of this.
> 
> I'm doing my best (as I always have done) to completely ignore any
> form of management.  I will try my best to do what I see fit
> regardless of the stated positions of alleged "managers".  The only
> thing worth managing is one's own time.
> 
I agree, this is the only way that Anarchy or Democracy can function. We
each must take responsibility for our contribution. You can't leave it up
to your leaders to make your decissions for you.

> Dominik, I've found your criticism useful if perhaps a bit too
> extreme.  Thank you for your contributions.

I agree completely here. I am beginning to see the motives behind
Dominik's criticisms. His arguments would have had a more open reception
is it had been a criticism of the application of "management" to the
project, in stead of being a personal attack against a manager. With that
in mind, I think the tread can be salvaged. There is still plenty of
benefit to be had from this discussion. In fact, from my point of view, we
are speeking to the fundamental issue "Functional Management and
Anarchy"...sort of sounds like a book title doesn't it ;-)

If we can discuss this in terms of "hypothetical" management scenarios
instead of individual critiques the results are likely to be more
productive. 
Dominik, your list of complaints about recent management decissions make
it clear to me that Bruce is responding, but just not in the ways that you
would wish he would. (Not uncommon in the political arena) I submit that
Bruce IS listening, but hasn't been given the framework of support that
could "lead" him to the "correct" choice, from the pool of varied and
diverse oppinion presented to him, both on the lists and in private.
I guess what I'm saying is that if we want better decissions from our
leaders, we are going to have to figure out how to educate them to make
those decissions "properly".

> 
> >As it seems right know, i am the only one who finds the situation
> >unbearable and that leaves as only conclusion that i do no longer fit
> >into the project.
> 
> Although I find the whole "management" thing unbearable.  I choose to
> ignore them.  I would be disappointed to lose your constructive
> criticism at this point in the project's evolution.  We definitely need
> people to criticise the "managers".  Although I wouldn't follow through
> on this impeachment thing, I think many aspects (but not all, of
> course) of your sentiments are not unpopular.
> 
I submit that our current problems don't stem so much from "problems of
leadership" as they do from "poor leader treatment".

I live in "The Miccosukee Land Cooperative", which is an "intentional"
community where we each own individual parcels of land while the
"community" holds "common land" for use by the community. Our "Community
Center" is built on some of this common land as well as the "Leon County
Pool Coop" facilities. All of these parts of our community are run by
volunteer effort provided by community members. These efforts are
contentious and at times escalate into near fist fights (no isolation over
the net here) but through all of that the community has held together
around it's core beliefs (dispite the influx of new members who don't yet
know our "ways") and we have all benefited greatly from the association.

I hope that I have made some hazy picture that will show why I think my
local community is an analog/mirror to the Debian community. Both groups
have a tendancy to "burn our leaders at the stake". This behaviour has
never been terribly constructive in my local community, and I see no
reason to expect it to be any better here in the Debian community.

I am coming to the conclusion that we need to focus on managing code not
people. We can protect our product better this way and never have to turn
anyone away.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-