The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A solution?

On Mar 26, Brian C. White wrote
> >    - board members who have positions like vize-president and
> >      so on resign from this position too but stay on the board
> >      so we don't get a big hierarchy but a flat system where
> >      we have the board and the developers (and of course the
> >      users).
> >    - we DON'T elect a new president and other positions like
> >      that. IMHO we don't need them.
> >    - decisions should be made by the members of the board by
> >      vote (the board is the democratic representation of the
> >      Debian developers/community).
> 
> This is fine for matters of policy, but you need to have a group
> of people that actually get things done.  Removing the existing
> hierarchy will only leave people not knowing who is doing what.

You can get things done (e.g. decisions) faster in a group of 8
people than in a group of 200 people. The main discussion will
take place on debian-devel (or debian-private). The board only
have to discuss some things again if a member of the board thinks
that there are special things to take care of.

If there is a need to decide things at a given time the board
has to do its job. The decision itself is just a matter of a
mail ("Topic xyz: I vote with 'yes' ..."). The voting could
also be done using a web server with restricted access or
something like that.

> >    - the board assigns officers for specials tasks (for example
> >      the webserver) and gives them limited power to decide
> >      some things (the board can overrule the officer by decision)
> 
> A few disjoint positions is not likely to work out very well.
> There are just too many things to coordinate and you can't go through
> a committee to get things done.

What are these things? Why couldn't an officer with limited power
do the job?

> >    - the board should maybe have 2 or 4 more members (I'm not
> >      sure about that)
> 
> Given the difficulties deciding things now, I would prefer 2 to 4
> fewer members.

I think 8 are ok (for example with a limit that at least 6 people
have to vote to make a decision official). But these are details
that can wait.

> >    - elections for the board should be held every 6 months.
> >      6 months is a long time. A short period makes it easier
> >      ensure that there won't be arrangements between the board
> >      members which would lead to a "one person decides" situation.
> 
> 6 months is not a long time.  The current board has already been
> sitting for 2.  Having elections that often will simply reduce the
> amount of time available to do real work.

IMHO 6 month would be ok. How long does it take to vote? A day
for the current members and other people to say "you know me,
please elect me again" or "I want to be on the board for this
reason and I want to do the following things for Debian" and
maybe three weeks to present the candidates and to vote. That
would be one day of work for the board members so where is the
problem?

> > Advantages of this proposal:
> > - no decisions are made by a single person
> 
> Not true.  Even in your examples, the "web page manager" would be
> making decisions.

Ok, add "except by officers with their limited power in their
particular field of work".

> > - it would allow us to make decisions faster
> 
> A group of people is always slower than a hierarchy which in turn
> is always slower than a single person.

It is easier for 8 people to decide about something than it is
for 200 people. And as I said it is a small overhead ...

> > Disadvantages of this proposal:
> > - Bruce and Dan would lose their titles "president" and
> >   "vize-president"
> 
> And me, though I don't care about the title.  I'm more worried that
> things would stop getting done again.

I think with such a change we would have a working system again
that everybody can live with. Especially because it would reduce
the "political" trouble we have right now.


Thanks,

Peter

-- 
 Peter Tobias                                EMail:
 Fachhochschule Ostfriesland                 tobias@et-inf.fho-emden.de
 Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informatik   tobias@debian.org
 Constantiaplatz 4, 26723 Emden, Germany     tobias@linux.de