Steve McIntyre | 1 Mar 01:07 2006

Re: Questions about Ubuntu

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:23:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>here are some questions for all candidates. They are related to the
>Debian-Ubuntu cooperation. (If you're not a candidate and wish to give me
>your opinion on that subject, please do so by private mail or move the
>discussion elsewhere like debian-project)
>

[ Disclaimer before I answer these questions: I have in the past
  accepted a bounty for a small piece of work I did for Ubuntu. I
  don't believe this affects my opinion, but it is only fair that
  people should know this... ]

>1/ What is your personal opinion about Ubuntu ?

I believe Ubuntu to be a good Free Software distribution based on
Debian. I'm quite happy that Ubuntu exists, in much the same way that
I'm happy that any free Linux-based system exists. The Ubuntu
developers have achieved remarkable results in a short period of time,
and I wish them every success.

Many Debian and Ubuntu developers have productive relationships, where
useful work by both sides is shared to improve the quality and
functionality of both. This is clearly a good thing. On the flip side,
I'd be even happier if there was a closer relationship and even more
effort was shared for the good of everybody.

>2/ What explains in your opinion the bad feelings that some DD have against
>Ubuntu ?
(Continue reading)

Steve McIntyre | 1 Mar 01:55 2006

Delegation (was Re: question for all candidates)

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>
>Heya,
>
>Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks
>in the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor
>covered by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform
>from 2004 last year (when he was elected), but it seems that nothing
>has happened since then.
>
>So, to the question:
>Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured
>in reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized
>as delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?

It's not clear that everybody doing the core jobs in Debian was ever
explicitly delegated by a DPL, but in my opinion that doesn't really
matter. This is for a couple of reasons:

  1. As I see it, the constitution does not require that all roles
     need be delegated. The way that most of Debian has always worked
     is that jobs are done by the people with the skills and (more
     importantly) the desire to do them.

  2. The people doing core tasks are still answerable to the rest of
     the project, regardless of whether they may have been delegated
     or not.

Making an issue of "delegation" would seem to just be a way of causing
aggravation for no good reason. If people believe there is a reason,
(Continue reading)

Ben Burton | 1 Mar 02:52 2006
Picon

Question for Ted Walther: Delegation


Hi Ted,

I'm a little confused on your interpretation of "delegation".  Consider
the following two examples in which you have appointed tasks to others:

1. In a thread from yesterday in which people were seeking out your
opinions, you appear to "delegate" someone else (who had not expressed
either interest or availability) to do the necessary background research
for you:

> If you think there is more information in those messages besides the
> fact that Ubuntu isn't harming Debian, and Debian isn't harming Ubuntu,
> then I hereby delegate you to summarize those mails, in your own words.
> I'm ready to hear what you have to say.

2. In your platform from the 2005 election, you appointed 12 people to
conduct in-depth research on gender issues and write a report within a
three-month deadline.  Again none of these people had expressed interest
or availablility, and in fact it was made clear by at least some of them
that they were not interested in doing this research for you.

So:

My question is, how do you distinguish "delegate" from "command" (or its
lesser cousin "request politely")?  If you were DPL and you delegated
tasks in this fashion, would you expect them to be done as a matter of
course?

(I realise example #2 was taken from your 2005 platform, but if your
(Continue reading)

Ted Walther | 1 Mar 03:03 2006
Picon

Re: Question for Ted Walther: Delegation

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:52:56PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>My question is, how do you distinguish "delegate" from "command" (or its
>lesser cousin "request politely")?  If you were DPL and you delegated
>tasks in this fashion, would you expect them to be done as a matter of
>course?

Every delegate has free personal choice.  If they choose not to accept
their delegation, then the task will go undone, unless someone else
steps up to the plate.

The different between delegation and a polite request is that if you
choose to accept the delegation, you then have official, public sanction
for your acts.  A polite request would be something personal, off the
record, as when Martin Michlmayer made some polite requests of me a
couple years ago.

Ted

--

-- 
          It's not true unless it makes you laugh,                           
     but you don't understand it until it makes you weep.

Eukleia: Ted Walther
Address: 5690 Pioneer Ave, Burnaby, BC  V5H2X6 (Canada)
Contact: 604-430-4973

Ben Burton | 1 Mar 04:22 2006
Picon

Re: Question for Ted Walther: Delegation


Hi Ted,

Thanks for your answers.  Another question regarding delegation:

What sorts of tasks would you plan to delegate?  Would you delegate
important decisions, or would you be more interested in delegating
gruntwork?

I ask because the two examples I posted before seems to be of the
gruntwork type (do time-consuming research and fact-finding, and then
present the results to you as a summary or report).  Perhaps these
examples are not representative of your leadership style, but they
happen to be the ones that I have noticed.

Thanks - Ben.

Charles Plessy | 1 Mar 04:26 2006

Question for Anthony Towns

Dear Anthony Towns,

When I sent you a private mail complaining about the ad-hominem style of
one of your posts on -devel, you published it on your blog. Will you do
the same with the private mails sent you as a DPL, if you were elected ?

Best regards,

--

-- 
Charles Plessy
Wako, Saitama, Japan

Ted Walther | 1 Mar 08:35 2006
Picon

Re: Question for Ted Walther: Delegation

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:22:21PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>What sorts of tasks would you plan to delegate?  Would you delegate
>important decisions, or would you be more interested in delegating
>gruntwork?

Until I am DPL, I won't have any idea of the types of things that might
need to be delegated.  But if you feel I've delegated you to do grunt
work, you are free to decline it.  After all, we're here to have fun.

>I ask because the two examples I posted before seems to be of the
>gruntwork type (do time-consuming research and fact-finding, and then
>present the results to you as a summary or report).

Fact finding and research can seem like grunt-work, but they are also a
good way of making sure your thoughts are heard, and heard in a
favorable light.  I think the two balance each other out.

I don't delegate people to do things they haven't already expressed
interest in.

Ted

--

-- 
          It's not true unless it makes you laugh,                           
     but you don't understand it until it makes you weep.

Eukleia: Ted Walther
Address: 5690 Pioneer Ave, Burnaby, BC  V5H2X6 (Canada)
Contact: 604-430-4973

(Continue reading)

Wouter Verhelst | 1 Mar 09:37 2006
Picon

Re: Questions for candidate Jeroen van Wolffelaar

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:39:45AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 28 février 2006 à 23:39 +0100, martin f krafft a écrit :
> > also sprach Josselin Mouette <joss <at> debian.org> [2006.02.28.2206 +0100]:
> > >      4. As a member of the FTP team, do you have any explanations about
> > >         the amd64 fiasco, and why we should vote for you despite that
> > >         outstanding failure for a team you are part of?
> > 
> > I know a little bit about what's going on, and I do not think it was
> > a fiasco.
> 
> Call it how you want, but not having amd64 in unstable in february 2006
> is a fiasco.

Oh, come on. Debian takin 3 years to release sarge, _that_ was a fiasco.
Debian not having amd64 in unstable in february 2006, that's just 'being
a bit late', which is no shame.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

--

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

martin f krafft | 1 Mar 09:46 2006
Picon

Re: Question for Ted Walther: Delegation

also sprach Ted Walther <krooger <at> debian.org> [2006.03.01.0303 +0100]:
> Every delegate has free personal choice.  If they choose not to
> accept their delegation, then the task will go undone, unless
> someone else steps up to the plate.

On what basis will you select the delegates then? Or do you simply
expect for many tasks to go undone and be happy with it?

--

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!

 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck <at> debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system

Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

"no work of art ever puts forward views.
 views belong to people
 who are not artists."
                                                        -- oscar wilde
Pierre Habouzit | 1 Mar 11:48 2006
X-Face
Picon

Re: questions for all candidates


> > and thus, the number of candidates is clearly a growing function of
> > the number of the DDs. the more debian grows, the more DPL
> > candidates we will have, and sadly the less DDs will feel
> > represented by the DPL
>
> That does not follow. If there are three candidates that I would be
> comfortable to have represent me, I simply rank all of those three
> above the other four, and then I can be happy if just one of my
> favourites get elected. I can still prioritize _between_ my favoured
> candidates on my ballot; that does not mean that I will only feel
> represented if my #1 choice wins.
>
> Do you think I would be happier if the guy I'd actually wanted was
> eliminated in a primary election such that the one I vote for in the
> main election is simply the best of those left? I don't think so.
>
> In fact, the Concordet system allows each voter to define his own
> party ticket as he votes - we get the functions of a primary
> election, actual election and run-offs in a single unified ballot,
> and without the manoeuvering in between that often makes real-world
> elections so unsatisfactory.
>
> We'll only get a problem if the candidates get so many that the
> developers don't have time to get a proper impression of each of them
> and decide how to rank them. But I don't think that will happen until
> we reach something like 15-20 candiates.

what I meant is that people presents themselves because they don't think 
others candidates represents them already.  <at> see Bill example.
(Continue reading)


Gmane