DPL Debate 2008

  1. <dondelelcaro> you all may want to /ignore #debian-dpl-debate JOIN PARTS QUITS or similar [19:40:00]
  2. <don_armstrong> We're just about ready to get started here, so let me take a few seconds to give everyone the ground rules [20:37:56]
  3. <don_armstrong> The debate this year is once again going to split into three sections, but unlike last year, we'll be asking questions and having candidates respond directly in the first question [20:38:40]
  4. <don_armstrong> We'll be relying relatively heavily on questions from the audience during the debate; slef, moray, and NeilMcGovern will be helping me select them from the audience [20:39:48]
  5. <don_armstrong> you can help them out by prefixing your questions with QUESTION: or similar [20:40:02]
  6. <don_armstrong> this first section will go for around 30-45 minutes, and we'll have a 5 minute break after it [20:40:33]
  7. <don_armstrong> ok, here we go! [20:41:11]
  8. <don_armstrong> (for everyone) What is the most important thing that you want to accomplish during your tenure as DPL? [20:41:28]
  9. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [20:43:24]
  10. <MarcBrockschmidt> OK, so obviously, taking over from sam is fairly important, meaning that I would like to go over all ongoing projects, see what there status is and make a few notes what needs to be done to move them forward (or who needs to be pinged for that) [20:44:17]
  11. <MarcBrockschmidt> After that, I would like to go forward with the aims I've written about in my platform. For each of them, I would like to allocate two months in which I focus on completing them if possible, or bringing the needed changes on the way. So the first thing would be to get a team of people up who would help in gathering information for regular reports from the DPL [20:45:52]
  12. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [20:46:48]
  13. <RaphaelHertzog> The most important thing is to let developers contribute in the most effective way, but for this prospective developers need to be able to become DD and existing developers need to be able to deal with lost/updated GPG Keys. [20:47:12]
  14. <RaphaelHertzog> So redynamizing those core teams is high on my priority list... [20:47:24]
  15. <RaphaelHertzog> On the other hand, visibility of the Debian project as a whole is important for the motivation of all developers... because we're proud of what we're doing and we appreciate when people use our work and speak of it in a positive manner. [20:48:17]
  16. <RaphaelHertzog> That's probably the two big axis for me if I'm elected DPL. [20:49:03]
  17. <RaphaelHertzog> (done) [20:49:16]
  18. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [20:49:37]
  19. <SteveMcIntyre> The most important thing for me is to try and improve how we work together [20:49:39]
  20. <SteveMcIntyre> We have places where we could work better in teams (for example) [20:49:49]
  21. <SteveMcIntyre> I want to work with all the core teams, see how I can help them work more efficiently [20:49:58]
  22. <SteveMcIntyre> Once I can see what is needed, I will push to make things happen [20:50:06]
  23. <SteveMcIntyre> (done) [20:50:12]
  24. <don_armstrong> next question: How would appointment to the DPL position change how you work on Debian? [20:50:35]
  25. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [20:52:30]
  26. <RaphaelHertzog> I don't expect to change "how" I work for Debian, but obviously I'll spend even more time on Debian as a whole [20:53:08]
  27. <RaphaelHertzog> I can afford it as I'm not employed by anyone, I'm an independent consultant [20:53:44]
  28. <RaphaelHertzog> I'll probably reduce my involved in some parts (Alioth admin) but things are in good hands there. [20:54:17]
  29. <RaphaelHertzog> s/involved/involvement/ [20:54:37]
  30. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [20:54:48]
  31. <MarcBrockschmidt> I think the DPL job will eat up a lot of the time I currently invest in Debian - even if I invest more time, I will have to reduce my involvement in other parts of the project. [20:55:27]
  32. <MarcBrockschmidt> Luckily, the release team was just strengthened through the addition of new release assistants, so working less on thart part and leaving more tasks to them isn't a big problem. [20:56:10]
  33. <MarcBrockschmidt> The New Maintainer Front Desk has mostly been handled by Christoph Berg in the past year, so reducing my efforts there should also not lead to problems. I will finish the NM process with my current applicants (13, I think) as AM, but not take on new ones, so that should reduce the time I need to spent in that area over the length of my term. [20:57:46]
  34. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [20:58:25]
  35. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: Eh [20:58:28]
  36. <SteveMcIntyre> Being DPL may mean I'd have to spend slightly less time on the other [20:58:31]
  37. <SteveMcIntyre> things I do in Debian. But most of the places where I spend my time [20:58:31]
  38. <SteveMcIntyre> already have other people working on them. I'd expect to be [20:58:31]
  39. <SteveMcIntyre> higher-profile within the project than I am now, spending more time on [20:58:31]
  40. <SteveMcIntyre> promoting work inside the project rather than just working in the [20:58:34]
  41. <SteveMcIntyre> background. [20:58:36]
  42. <don_armstrong> (next question): What, if anything, are you planning to do about the Debian keyring situation, and how will you go about it? [20:59:19]
  43. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [21:00:28]
  44. <SteveMcIntyre> as I've already said, I want to work with all of the core teams to see how they're getting on [21:00:57]
  45. <SteveMcIntyre> (keyring, DAM, release, policy, etc.) and see (a) how they think they're doing (b) how others think they're doing (c) what can be done to make things better [21:01:43]
  46. <SteveMcIntyre> after that review, I'll do whatever is needed to help [21:02:04]
  47. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [21:03:56]
  48. <RaphaelHertzog> I want the work to be handled by a team. James has made a first step in this direction by adding Jonathan McDowell to the keyring group, but he can't handle the keyring itself, only the keyring server and some related infrastructure. [21:04:40]
  49. <RaphaelHertzog> Jonathan has made proposals on how to go forward as a team and we should implement them. I believe we're waiting on feedback of James Troup (not the first time I hear that, heh) right now. I'll prod James some more and make sure things go forward in a few months. [21:04:47]
  50. <RaphaelHertzog> If not, we'll find a way to officialize Jonathan as keyring manager and work around James if it's really necessary. But as we saw with the DSA team, it's possible to get people added without resorting to such decisions. [21:05:03]
  51. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [21:05:18]
  52. <MarcBrockschmidt> The keyring maintainer (and with that, the LDAP database maintainer) has been a bottleneck in the past, keeping quite a few people from contributing. This is incredibly frustratring and will need to be addressed. There are two problems with the keyring maintainers right now: [21:05:24]
  53. <MarcBrockschmidt> (i) a technical issue, as the keyring is maintained by one person in a binary blob, making it impossible for others to help [21:05:52]
  54. <MarcBrockschmidt> (ii) a workflow problem, as Joerg Jasperts DAM work is (partly) done again for new maintainers [21:06:00]
  55. <MarcBrockschmidt> The first issue can be solved by tools like jetring, which has shown promising results with the DM keyring [21:06:36]
  56. <MarcBrockschmidt> The second issue is more of a social problem, and as DPL, I will try to talk over this issue with James to see if he can finally trust Joerg enough to just sign off on his decisions, reducing the keyring maintaining effort to adding keys (and accounts in the LDAP) [21:07:20]
  57. <don_armstrong> (next question): As dpl, what steps (if any) would you take to defuse the current dpkg impasse, and others like them? [21:08:02]
  58. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [21:09:43]
  59. <RaphaelHertzog> Hum, hum... I have been involved in this story as a member of the dpkg team. [21:10:14]
  60. <RaphaelHertzog> I wouldn't behave differently if I had been DPL because my role has only been one of "mediator" between Ian and Guillem. [21:10:45]
  61. <RaphaelHertzog> I discussed hours long with Ian to defuse the story while it was possible, but despite all of this, Ian took his (bad) decision alone [21:11:29]
  62. <RaphaelHertzog> In short: discuss with both sides, try to make proposals (here it was: wait some more until Guillem merges your stuff) [21:11:57]
  63. <RaphaelHertzog> try to provider an external view to a problem and possibly new ideas solving concerns of both sides [21:12:37]
  64. <RaphaelHertzog> but it doesn't always work and we must accept that as well [21:13:11]
  65. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [21:13:30]
  66. <MarcBrockschmidt> There is not much a DPL can do about such social problems but try to get people back into a reasonable discussion. Reminding everyone of the fact that maintaining two different versions is in noones interest, as it wastes development time, might help. [21:13:36]
  67. <MarcBrockschmidt> The dpkg problems have been due to some unfortunate circumstances: people not having the time needed to work on problems, while others were reacting a bit too aggressive. [21:14:04]
  68. <MarcBrockschmidt> In such cases, the DPL can act as mediator, or delegate this task to someone else, depending on their own involvement in the specific case. [21:14:21]
  69. <MarcBrockschmidt> Wether it's actually possible to "solve" such a problems is not really decideable, I think the DPL can only mitigate the entailing disaster, as such issues usually come to the DPL after they have blown up. [21:15:53]
  70. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [21:16:17]
  71. <SteveMcIntyre> Clearly, the first thing to do is to try and avoid this kind of acrimonious situation in the first place. But that's not always possible. In places where things have fallen apart like this, then we need to find out *exactly* what has happened (working past the "he said, she said" arguments). Then appeal to the two sides to agree the facts and work towards a compromise. If that doesn't work, it may be time to make and enforce a decision. The [21:16:20]
  72. <SteveMcIntyre> sorry, filling in [21:17:05]
  73. <SteveMcIntyre> exact details of that decision will depend on the case in question, of course. [21:17:06]
  74. <RaphaelHertzog> Last remark from me: [21:18:11]
  75. <RaphaelHertzog> I also explained to Ian how he could help to get his work integrated but he stubbornly refused to do the cleanup work that was needed, so his only option was to wait until someone else (i.e. Guillem) does it. I pushed for cooperation but I can't impose it... [21:18:13]
  76. <don_armstrong> (next question (from sam)): some of my (sam's) actions as DPL did not match my initial enthusiasm, are there specific areas where you would like to be more aggressive than I have been? [21:18:36]
  77. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [21:20:19]
  78. <RaphaelHertzog> Well, I've been helping sam on some front already... mainly concerning the DSA team. [21:20:48]
  79. <RaphaelHertzog> So I know how exhausting it can be to make things go forward (mails unanswered, IRC ping needed, real life chat at debconf followed by ... nothing, etc.) [21:21:29]
  80. <RaphaelHertzog> But we got results for DSA, and I really want that we achieve the same kinds of results for other teams [21:22:05]
  81. <RaphaelHertzog> and that we redo the same for DSA because one more member is not yet enough [21:22:20]
  82. <RaphaelHertzog> So not more agressive, but in the continuation at least. [21:23:11]
  83. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [21:23:30]
  84. <SteveMcIntyre> Looking through Sam's platform, I have seen places where he worked on various of the things he said he would. Some of it could have been more public, and that's something I would like to see improved in the future. He did manage to grow the DSA team, and that was great. Even more emphasis on improving / fixing the teams is my main focus. [21:23:34]
  85. <SteveMcIntyre> There are also some places where Sam didn't get much chance to work on his aims, and that's a shame. It's all too easy to make big promises and not have the time or effort to do everything you wanted [21:24:30]
  86. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [21:24:57]
  87. <MarcBrockschmidt> "Making Debian sexy again" was one of sam's goals - I feel this has been neglected and would like to work on that. Making Debian more interesting to both new contributors and users still needs quite a lot of work. I have tried to describe my plans for this in my platform. [21:25:05]
  88. <MarcBrockschmidt> The most important issue for new contributors is to make it easier to find some sort of starting point, so that they can get to know the project easily. This can be done by having a public list of things that need doing - we have provided such a list in the past few years for the Google Summer of Code, we should do this all the time. [21:25:13]
  89. <MarcBrockschmidt> For new users, we need to change how we present Debian: In the past, DDs haven taken a certain pride in being responsible for a complicated system. We need to show people how easy Debian can be - just as easy as Ubuntu or other distributions. [21:26:08]
  90. <don_armstrong> ok, we're going to do a quick round of rebuttals now [21:26:45]
  91. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [21:26:49]
  92. <RaphaelHertzog> Sam's platform contained lots of idea for the future and they are still quite interesting, I can fully understand that he did not have the time to work on all of them [21:27:08]
  93. <RaphaelHertzog> and "Making Debian sexy again" is important to all of us [21:27:22]
  94. <RaphaelHertzog> fortunately DPL powers are not needed for this part and I hope sam will be able to spend some time on this front now that he has some free time again :-) [21:27:50]
  95. <SteveMcIntyre> :-) [21:27:58]
  96. <RaphaelHertzog> in any case, if he needs support from me, he will have it :-) [21:28:11]
  97. <don_armstrong> ok. we're going to take a 5 minute break here for everyone [21:28:27]
  98. <don_armstrong> Feel free to keep proposing questions during the break and we'll return momentarily [21:29:09]
  99. <MarcBrockschmidt> So who will do the promised ads? :) [21:29:23]
  100. <don_armstrong> ok, we're just about ready to get started with the second section of questions; this 30-45 minute section will be followed by the final free for all section [21:33:30]
  101. <don_armstrong> here we go! [21:35:24]
  102. <don_armstrong> how do you see the position of the techctte? Would you consider changing the way the member are appointed (e.g., by a general election, DPL appointing new members, etc)? [21:35:39]
  103. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [21:36:19]
  104. <SteveMcIntyre> The tech committee has been struggling lately; there have been quite a few decisions pushed their way, and they've had problems making those decisions [21:37:16]
  105. <SteveMcIntyre> I don't think it's a job where elections are going to give you the best mix of people [21:37:48]
  106. <SteveMcIntyre> but encouraging more new people to volunteer would be useful [21:38:17]
  107. <SteveMcIntyre> Maybe some of the existing TC members would be more productive elsewhere, and I'd encourage them to step down [21:38:46]
  108. <SteveMcIntyre> more rapid changes in the committee is something I'd like - I think we should be more dynamic here [21:39:48]
  109. <SteveMcIntyre> if we have people who are being really problematic, then I'd "encourage" them very strongly to step down [21:39:48]
  110. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [21:41:51]
  111. <RaphaelHertzog> I don't have a strong opinion on how the tech-ctte is appointed and I find the current discussion in -vote quite sane on that topic. Let's see the results there. [21:41:58]
  112. <RaphaelHertzog> On the other hand, I believe that the current membership doesn't reflect well the project as a whole. I do have problems with Manoj because he's too far away in the spectrum of Debian developers (he doesn't know debhelper for example and refuse to learn it). [21:42:12]
  113. <RaphaelHertzog> And following all the latest discussions (within the commitee) I also have a problem with Ian's ability to build consensus. [21:42:30]
  114. <RaphaelHertzog> But that is only my _personal_ opinion and I don't think I'm going to use my energy to get changes there. [21:43:10]
  115. <RaphaelHertzog> I'll follow discussions and chime in as usual, not much more. That said, maybe Lucas and/or Moritz have more interest on that aspect and they might come up with ideas that I'll approve. [21:44:04]
  116. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [21:44:56]
  117. <MarcBrockschmidt> The tech-ctte has been purely reactive in the past, even though the constitution explicitly allows it to be proactive. Together with reviving it by asking some members to step down (and be replaced by people more active in the Debian environment today), concentrating on this could make the tech-ctte more valuable than it has ever been in the past. [21:45:16]
  118. <MarcBrockschmidt> Debian has become slow in adapting new policies - having a group of experienced and active members encouraging changes in the Debian policy, which nowadays often need work on a large number of packages, could help to adapt faster and introduce new and interesting features faster. [21:45:23]
  119. <MarcBrockschmidt> The current discussion on the appointment of tech-ctte on -vote seems to have no clear goal. I'm not a big fan of using elections to find people experienced enough to make good decisions, but the current system has a faint smell of cronyism and isn't really handling the situation too well. [21:45:51]
  120. <MarcBrockschmidt> More dicussion should happen in this area, but as this has already started, I don't what role the DPL should play in this case. [21:46:51]
  121. <MarcBrockschmidt> If there shouldn't be result in the discussions after the elections (and should I get elected), I would try to revive the thread on -vote to get to a GR at some point, so that we can actually decide through a vote. [21:47:32]
  122. <don_armstrong> next question: Debian has traditionally been poor at spending the money people have donated to improving the project. If 100k USD was available to you to spend on Debian, how would you spend it? [21:48:15]
  123. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [21:49:17]
  124. <SteveMcIntyre> that's an easy one, and I have an answer that people will probably predict [21:49:40]
  125. <RaphaelHertzog> debconf! [21:49:47]
  126. <SteveMcIntyre> as Debconf sponsorship team lead, I could spend the money very easily on a big Debconf :-) [21:50:04]
  127. <SteveMcIntyre> it would give us the opportunity to have a larger DC, or one where costs and/or travel are more expensive [21:50:40]
  128. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [21:51:10]
  129. <MarcBrockschmidt> I would like to dispute that Debian hasn't been spending its money. Sam has approved quite a few thing. I have personally drawn from Debian assets only last week, to buy hardware for buildd and porter boxes for the armel port. Joerg Jaspert has just this week used Debian money to buy new HDDs for the meetings-archive and other Debian services. [21:52:41]
  130. <MarcBrockschmidt> I think that this policy of sponsoring many small things is helping quite a lot, giving people the chance to improve services in the Debian ecosystem. [21:53:35]
  131. <MarcBrockschmidt> I have no idea to spend 100k USD at once, but the debconf people have always put money to good use, so they could get whatever isn't needed for other, more urgent things :-) [21:54:10]
  132. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [21:54:19]
  133. <RaphaelHertzog> We have found only a few ways to spend the money without creating troubles in the community: organize meetings and new hardware. As our sponsors are quite generous for the hardware, we end up using the money mostly only on meetings. [21:54:34]
  134. <RaphaelHertzog> So let's organize meetings focused around the goals laid out if my platform... [21:54:43]
  135. <RaphaelHertzog> That said any other meeting is welcome as well, and I'll happily approve usage of the money for travel reimbursement and so on. [21:55:04]
  136. <don_armstrong> (next queston): "making debian sexy" and "improving visibility" has both been mentioned, which sounds like we need more "non-technical" people in the project. How do you think we can attract them and what changes would you be willing to push to make it easier and/or more attractive for those kind of people to join and help out? [21:55:52]
  137. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [21:56:27]
  138. <MarcBrockschmidt> As I laid out some time ago in a post about the state of the NM process on dda, I think we should separate project membership (and being able to vote) from the permission to upload. Quite a few people have spent a lot of time on Debian without maintaining packages and ever wanting to go through the NM process, but should still get a say in project politics [21:57:31]
  139. <MarcBrockschmidt> We should recruite more people who are enthusiastic about the project and help them to present it in a more official way [21:58:43]
  140. <MarcBrockschmidt> This also reflects in my goal of collecting materials to present Debian, the people helping with that on a regular basis are just as a DD maintaing a tiny fringe package and should be rewarded for that. [21:59:22]
  141. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [22:00:03]
  142. <SteveMcIntyre> simply being more visible to new contributors would help us most, I think [22:00:38]
  143. <SteveMcIntyre> a lot of today's new users are the new contributors of tomorrow [22:01:05]
  144. <SteveMcIntyre> whether that is the more technical developer types, or the artists, the translators, whatever [22:01:51]
  145. <SteveMcIntyre> making them aware that we're here and Debian can be fun is the biggest thing we can do [22:02:23]
  146. <SteveMcIntyre> making it more attractive for people to contribute, making sure that they get the credit that will make them happy to do so [22:02:55]
  147. <SteveMcIntyre> while I'm not sure I agree 100% with Sam's mascot idea, a team to work on the publicity front and make us look better would be a good start down this route [22:03:44]
  148. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [22:03:54]
  149. <RaphaelHertzog> I agree the infrastructural changes described by Marc would be nice to have. It is the right direction for the project to take. [22:04:12]
  150. <RaphaelHertzog> But I'm not convinced that those changes will attract non-technical contributors. We already have debian-community.org for those who need some recognition with an email address or whatever. [22:04:21]
  151. <RaphaelHertzog> I think the key is in communication and our "publicity/marketing" efforts should be headed in that direction. [22:04:32]
  152. <RaphaelHertzog> We have to provide simple HOWTO for various ways to help, communicate around them and have a few volunteers to respond to questions. [22:04:56]
  153. <RaphaelHertzog> It's a recipe that works quite well in Ubuntu... we only need a few volunteers to do something similar. It might even be an area where we can cooperate with Ubuntu. [22:05:03]
  154. <don_armstrong> we'll do rebuttals for this question [22:06:13]
  155. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [22:06:16]
  156. <MarcBrockschmidt> RaphaelHertzog: debian-community.org is a nice idea, but it hasn't been advertised very much [22:06:48]
  157. <MarcBrockschmidt> RaphaelHertzog: Also, being on debian-community.org still leaves people without an actual influence on the project. [22:07:13]
  158. <MarcBrockschmidt> RaphaelHertzog: d-c.org has also never been endorsed by the project officially, so it's *NOT* at all a replacement for recognition by the Debian project - it's just recognition by some people who feel that Debian doesn't handle non-maintainers very well [22:07:58]
  159. <don_armstrong> (next question): Debian had its Debian Weekly News stopped, as the only one who was able to post on -news stopped working on it, and did not accept others taking over (when not using his style). Similar this have happened on other aspects of -news; considering that, how do you think our press team should work? What about debian-announce? [22:08:22]
  160. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [22:08:49]
  161. <SteveMcIntyre> if people have stopped working on something altogether, then I don't think they should have the right to stop others working on it just because of stylistic differences [22:09:38]
  162. <SteveMcIntyre> at the risk of causing a flood of beer in -discuss, I am a very big believer in the idea of Debian as a do-ocracy [22:10:12]
  163. <SteveMcIntyre> times changes, new people take over from old [22:10:24]
  164. <SteveMcIntyre> the press group should accept contributions from aynone serious about working on the problem [22:11:05]
  165. <SteveMcIntyre> let's remove blockages that cause us problems [22:11:22]
  166. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [22:11:38]
  167. <MarcBrockschmidt> Losing the Debian Weekly News was probably one of the worst things that happened to the Debian project in the past three years. It was helping all people with too small time resources to follow all debian lists to get all important news about the project. I would like to thank Joey Schulze, who did most of the work behind it, for all his work. [22:12:45]
  168. <MarcBrockschmidt> On the other hand, the project failed because he wasn't willing to adapt to other contributors, while he wasn't able to do as much work on it as before. This is a common problem in Debian, when jobs stay with people who started working on them and never noticed that others should take over. [22:14:11]
  169. * SteveMcIntyre nods [22:14:22]
  170. <MarcBrockschmidt> The press team sure needs to be revived, it's one of the things I believe to be most important for Debian. This also includes more usage of debian-announce. [22:14:49]
  171. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [22:14:57]
  172. <RaphaelHertzog> I'm not sure the description of the situation is fully accurate. The state of he press team is problematic, but the real problem is the lack of content ready to send on those lists. Blaming the person doesn't help to get things fixed. [22:15:17]
  173. <RaphaelHertzog> Once we have that content, we can first send it to debian-devel-announce and later take over debian-news. [22:15:34]
  174. <RaphaelHertzog> And then nobody can complain because the replacement is done with real work and not just intentions. I believe it will be easy to get the consent of listmasters on this topic. [22:15:40]
  175. <RaphaelHertzog> It's in that spirit that I started http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews [22:16:05]
  176. <RaphaelHertzog> I would like this to replace Debian Weekly News once enough people contribute to make it possible to keep a reasonable rate of publication [22:16:42]
  177. <RaphaelHertzog> so whoever asked that question, please help us and contribute to this wiki page :) [22:17:10]
  178. <don_armstrong> Do the candidates have an explanation for the seeming complete lack of interest for the DPL elections, does it worry them and, if so, what would they do about it if elected? [22:17:39]
  179. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [22:18:44]
  180. <MarcBrockschmidt> I'm not worried very much by the lack of interest in the DPL election this year. [22:19:06]
  181. <MarcBrockschmidt> I have the impression that most people don't care very much because they have the impression that of the candidates are capable of doing a great job, while the differences in their platforms aren't very big. [22:19:57]
  182. <MarcBrockschmidt> On the other hand, most people have been frustrated by the seemingly small affect DPLs had on the project in the past few year, apart from the dunc-tank disaster (which didn't need a DPL hat to be so controversial), most DPL actions never received much interest. [22:20:46]
  183. <MarcBrockschmidt> So I think most DDs simply have accepted that the powers of the DPL are small - combined with the impression that there are no nutjobs in this year's field, there's no need to show a great interest in flamewars on -vote [22:21:21]
  184. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [22:21:45]
  185. <SteveMcIntyre> MarcBrockschmidt has basically covered what I'd say before I get there [22:22:16]
  186. <SteveMcIntyre> I don't see the small field or small interest as a problem in the slightest [22:22:38]
  187. <MarcBrockschmidt> Just to clarify the statement above: "all of the candidates are capable of doing a great job" (the all was missing) [22:23:15]
  188. <SteveMcIntyre> instead, I'd prefer to believe that most people are happy with what the three of us are offering [22:23:16]
  189. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [22:23:43]
  190. <RaphaelHertzog> I fully agree with what Marc said as well. [22:23:54]
  191. <RaphaelHertzog> In fact, even if I'm always interested in the topic of Debian leadership, I was more keen to be part of a team than to run a team by myself. [22:24:49]
  192. <RaphaelHertzog> I first asked Marc if he would run a team and I offered my help. [22:25:29]
  193. <RaphaelHertzog> I only decided to ran when Moritz contacted me [22:25:55]
  194. <RaphaelHertzog> s/ran/run/ [22:26:02]
  195. <RaphaelHertzog> I believe we've been happy with sam as DPL and as such the problem of leadership is less important to us today... but it's a mistake, because we need continuity in the work. [22:26:50]
  196. <don_armstrong> (last question): What will you do if a core team refuses to communicate with you as the DPL? [22:27:06]
  197. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: go ahead [22:27:23]
  198. <SteveMcIntyre> simple answer: replace them [22:27:29]
  199. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: go ahead [22:27:38]
  200. <RaphaelHertzog> I don't expect this to happen, but in case of personal problems I'm happy enough if they discuss with Moritz and Lucas. They'll report to me anyway and we can discuss sanely anyway. [22:28:19]
  201. <RaphaelHertzog> If they don't want to discuss at all, then a GR is in order. The DPL can start GR quite quickly if needed. [22:28:55]
  202. <RaphaelHertzog> Experience has shown that everybody respect the outcome of GR. [22:29:16]
  203. <RaphaelHertzog> But it's always best to discuss and avoid silly GR. [22:29:48]
  204. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: go ahead [22:30:09]
  205. <MarcBrockschmidt> As long as one DSA member is willing to help, I would point out that I'm willing to replace them if they don't react in a reasonable time (such as two weeks). If they don't react: Replace them. [22:30:12]
  206. <don_armstrong> We'll take another 5 minute break here [22:30:52]
  207. <don_armstrong> when we're back, we'll start the free for all. If you see a question that you'd like me to posit directly to a candidate, keep mentioning them in d-discuss [22:31:30]
  208. <don_armstrong> we will start up the total free for all in the next section [22:34:45]
  209. <don_armstrong> candidates are free to ask eachother questions, and I will try to ask them questions and keep things moving as well [22:35:03]
  210. <don_armstrong> I will also attempt to keep an eye out for new questions from -discuss to ask the candidates, so keep asking them if you want them answered. [22:35:29]
  211. <don_armstrong> Will adding people ever also be followed by removing no longer active or problematic people? [22:37:59]
  212. <don_armstrong> consider this also in relationship to the current state of the MIA system [22:38:19]
  213. <don_armstrong> (candidates can just start writing and interacting at any point they wish, so don't be shy) [22:38:37]
  214. <MarcBrockschmidt> There is strong difference between removing people who are MIA and people who are problematic [22:38:51]
  215. <SteveMcIntyre> ok, we're starting [22:38:52]
  216. <MarcBrockschmidt> While the first thing is something which can be measured more or less objectively, the latter is highly subjective. [22:39:10]
  217. <SteveMcIntyre> removing people who are no longer active is important [22:39:13]
  218. <MarcBrockschmidt> This can't be done in the same prcoess. [22:39:15]
  219. <RaphaelHertzog> Pruning members who are not active is not a big priority, it tends to get done automatically when we have active members. [22:39:25]
  220. <SteveMcIntyre> removing people who are actively stopping others is even more important [22:39:28]
  221. <SteveMcIntyre> the latter is the one to concentrate on first [22:39:43]
  222. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: how do you plan on removing those people and/or identifying them? [22:39:50]
  223. <RaphaelHertzog> SteveMcIntyre: Ack. Would you consider workind around them as acceptable to avoid the direct conflict? [22:40:17]
  224. <SteveMcIntyre> don_armstrong: in the teams (yay!) where I want to review, I will be asking all the people involved what their opinions are [22:40:31]
  225. <MarcBrockschmidt> For inactive people, the (not so) recent WAT run has created a long list of people who simply need to be removed, this is something that needs a more active account management (with direct access to LDAP and keyring). [22:40:45]
  226. <SteveMcIntyre> if there is a consensus that certain people are being problematic, that's a good start for identifying them [22:40:54]
  227. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: what do you think is needed for the latter to occur in a timely fashion? [22:41:18]
  228. <SteveMcIntyre> once identified, it *should* be a simple matter of asking them nicely to consider their position [22:41:19]
  229. <SteveMcIntyre> there's lots of scope to escalate from there in extreme cases [22:41:31]
  230. <SteveMcIntyre> RaphaelHertzog: sometimes just working around people is not the right option [22:41:59]
  231. <SteveMcIntyre> you can waste more time doing that than getting the job done [22:42:08]
  232. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: Well, we have a defined procedure for "expulsing" problematic people - probably the horrible experience of the first use of this procedure have lead people to not use it [22:42:13]
  233. <RaphaelHertzog> Not much to add, I agree with Marc as well. The MIA process works, getting their decision applied is the problematic part for now. [22:42:33]
  234. <SteveMcIntyre> for something that we're volunteering to do for "fun", well, that doesn't sound much like fun to me [22:42:35]
  235. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: what about dealing with people's memberships in teams? [22:42:45]
  236. <don_armstrong> Along those lines, what are your opinions about listmaster's baning of certain individuals (including DDs) from lists? [22:43:27]
  237. <RaphaelHertzog> There's a proposal of Josip Roding on -vote also. [22:43:37]
  238. <RaphaelHertzog> It tries to resume the current situation and emphasize on procedures to get out of the limbo when a team gets stalled. [22:44:10]
  239. <RaphaelHertzog> s/resume/sum up/ [22:44:18]
  240. <SteveMcIntyre> if anybody is being too disruptive on lists (DD or not) then there is a case for banning [22:44:40]
  241. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: one of the key questions was identifying those people who are negatively impacting teams; can you tell us what metrics you're going to use to decide whom to remove from delegation? [22:44:43]
  242. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: I believe that teams should deal with problematic members on their own. Enforcing an outside decisions sounds like a horrible idea. [22:44:45]
  243. <SteveMcIntyre> we're trying to get things done here, not prove how clever we are on mailing lists [22:45:00]
  244. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: If complete teams are dysfunction, they need to be replaced, but I guess that's another question [22:45:01]
  245. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: lets assume that I asked that question (or that the team leadership is dysfunctional) [22:45:22]
  246. <RaphaelHertzog> It's difficult to officialize practice of team management but I tried to do give good guidelines with http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Guidelines [22:45:33]
  247. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: when you were 2nd in command last I year, what are the things you had wanted to accompish but I weren't able to, and do yuou think that will be different if you're elected DPL proper? [22:45:57]
  248. <RaphaelHertzog> don_armstrong: I don't think we have metrics... we only have opinions of other members of said teams. Most of the problems do not show up publicly. [22:46:37]
  249. <SteveMcIntyre> I was hoping to push more on the non-working areas of the project, but I'll be honest and say that I didn't feel comfortable pushing hard on those without being full DPL [22:46:53]
  250. <RaphaelHertzog> We only the see the (lack of) results but not the internal problems. [22:46:56]
  251. <SteveMcIntyre> This year, things would be different [22:47:00]
  252. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: what do you feel are currently the areas that need the most attention? [22:47:12]
  253. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: For packaging teams, we have the tech-ctte who can decide in such situations - and should, probably. For teams delegated by the DPL, the DPL is responsible. The only problem left are teams who feel that they are not delegated, but don't do packaging. There's an excellent GR proposal from Joy waiting on -vote to clear up that situation [22:47:20]
  254. <SteveMcIntyre> don_armstrong: I *really* want to get people communicating more [22:47:24]
  255. <SteveMcIntyre> if there are things happening in a particular area, tell the project / world what you're doing [22:47:44]
  256. <SteveMcIntyre> the best way of making sure that we get more people interested in helping is by showing that work is already happening [22:48:09]
  257. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: how specifically do you plan on making the internal issues of teams more transparent? [22:48:20]
  258. <SteveMcIntyre> if there's no sign of work at all, then the obvious (even if incorrect) assumption is that there is none [22:48:36]
  259. <RaphaelHertzog> SteveMcIntyre: +1 on that, showing what is done gives ideas to people to help and jump in [22:48:42]
  260. <SteveMcIntyre> yup, exactly [22:48:50]
  261. <don_armstrong> Lets move on to release architectures and buildds; Several architectures have had structural problems keeping up for the past 6 months or so. Do you think that more could have been done to get them working again? [22:49:28]
  262. <SteveMcIntyre> don_armstrong: once we get people communicating more about their ideas, successes and problems then the areas that need *real* action / help will become obvious [22:49:33]
  263. <SteveMcIntyre> yes, I think so [22:50:07]
  264. <RaphaelHertzog> don_armstrong: Working in the open is a first step... and while it will not always show the problems, it will show who is working within the team and who has the more importance in any discussion/negotiation. [22:50:17]
  265. <SteveMcIntyre> (obviously :-)) [22:50:18]
  266. <don_armstrong> underlining that question even more, do you know what went wrong, and what do you think can be done about it? [22:50:21]
  267. <SteveMcIntyre> if we can get more people working on things, the rest becomes (almost!) easy [22:50:38]
  268. <MarcBrockschmidt> I guess I'm probably best qualified to answer about release issues :-) We had some problems with several architectures: alpha in the last year (solved by adding a new buildd), hppa just recently (for which new boxes are set up right now) and most notably arm, mips and mipsel. arm will be dropped after the lenny release, being replaced by armel. [22:50:43]
  269. <SteveMcIntyre> or (as sometimes may happen) it may become clear that there isn't enough interest in a problem / architecture / discussion and then we know it's time to lay it to rest [22:51:11]
  270. <SteveMcIntyre> more buildds are useful, along with more porters with the expertise and (even more important, maybe) the enthusiasm to fix the problems that come up [22:51:51]
  271. <RaphaelHertzog> don_armstrong: obviously, the buildd redundancy criteria is not fully respected but I'm not sure we can do much more, if the DPL can help with money to get new hardware, then fine, but most of the time there are other problems which are blocking [22:51:53]
  272. <don_armstrong> how to you all propose to communicate those problems more effectively? [22:52:19]
  273. <don_armstrong> s/to/do/ [22:52:28]
  274. <MarcBrockschmidt> This leaves the mips(el) issues. We have two buildds for each architecture, of which only one was running for some time in the past few weeks. This was due to faulty hardware (which was fixed quite fast) and more notably due to kernel problems. These have been resolved by the porters after some time, but that needed too much time. [22:52:37]
  275. <SteveMcIntyre> try and get the porter teams to be more visible, is the first thing [22:53:07]
  276. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: an specific ideas on how to do that? [22:53:29]
  277. <SteveMcIntyre> we need fresh blood to get some of our arches going again, or we're going to lose more in the near-ish future [22:53:29]
  278. <RaphaelHertzog> yeah, kernel issues and hosting issue take time to get solved, we all need to accept delays from time to time, we're all volunteers, we work hard on minimizing them, but we shouldn't complain too fast too [22:53:40]
  279. <SteveMcIntyre> encourage them to post things to d-d-a, maybe organise specific events for the arch teams to work together [22:54:00]
  280. <MarcBrockschmidt> Yes. I have been collecting quite a lot information about buildd stuff because this simply is part of the release team tasks. Writing this up in a "bits from the project" posting to dda wouldn't be too hard. [22:54:05]
  281. <SteveMcIntyre> that kind of thing [22:54:06]
  282. <RaphaelHertzog> only if the problems are recurrent do we need to go further and declassify an arch or stuff like that, but the I fully trust the judgment of the release team in that matter [22:54:23]
  283. <SteveMcIntyre> if we can have regular BSPs and Extremadura meetings for QA, then maybe one to "make hppa excellent" could work too [22:54:38]
  284. <SteveMcIntyre> MarcBrockschmidt: cool, go ahead :-) [22:54:56]
  285. <MarcBrockschmidt> I'm not happy to contribute such things to the DeveloperNews as created in the Debian wiki at the moment, as it's unclear when these postings get out, so whenever you submit fresh information, you have to fear that it gets to dda only 4 weeks later, when it is already out of date [22:54:56]
  286. <RaphaelHertzog> MarcBrockschmidt SteveMcIntyre: Why aren't you using wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews more often? [22:55:16]
  287. <don_armstrong> How do you all propose to get people to regularly communicate these sorts of things? [22:55:21]
  288. <MarcBrockschmidt> RaphaelHertzog: I think I answered that before you asked the question :) [22:55:27]
  289. <RaphaelHertzog> MarcBrockschmidt: hah :) [22:55:30]
  290. <SteveMcIntyre> RaphaelHertzog: I simply haven't had a huge amount to say on it yet, tbh [22:55:44]
  291. <don_armstrong> I mean, if communication is such a serious problem, what specifically have you done to help the situtation up until now? [22:55:57]
  292. <MarcBrockschmidt> RaphaelHertzog: I did contribute some bits, for example the linda thing in the last posting [22:56:05]
  293. <RaphaelHertzog> SteveMcIntyre: we want bits of the CD team there... :) [22:56:06]
  294. <SteveMcIntyre> I should remember to do that, please remind me :-) [22:56:08]
  295. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: I believe that the current policy about communication of problems is that we expect people to push this information out. [22:56:28]
  296. * SteveMcIntyre nods MarcBrockschmidt [22:56:36]
  297. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: This is a bad approach when people are drowning in work, because they simply don't have the time to push this stuff [22:56:45]
  298. <RaphaelHertzog> MarcBrockschmidt: the policy for DeveloperNews is that I send out as soon as we have 5 items [22:56:52]
  299. <MarcBrockschmidt> So what needs to be done is get people to *pull* the information, using IRC or mail to contact others [22:57:10]
  300. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: Lets assume that they know it's expected of them; any ideas on how to get it to happen? [22:57:17]
  301. <SteveMcIntyre> maybe it's a place where the DPL can help directly, or suggest that new people can get quickly involved by going and talking to those people [22:57:21]
  302. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: or, who is going to do the pulling? [22:57:31]
  303. <SteveMcIntyre> simply learning about the issues can be a good spur for wanting to work on them [22:57:39]
  304. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: I have been doing much of this and ahve been thinking how to present this better - blogging seems to be a bad idea, because it's not *my* information [22:57:57]
  305. <RaphaelHertzog> MarcBrockschmidt: the DPL can pull/prod some time, but it doesn't take much to write 5 lines in a wiki, we really need to get people to change their habits, it takes time but it ought be possible [22:58:16]
  306. <SteveMcIntyre> it's a major thing - encourage people to be proud of what they're working on [22:58:40]
  307. <don_armstrong> lets move on to another topic: [22:58:46]
  308. <MarcBrockschmidt> If you get a bunch of people together who pull information (and perhaps with a bit of waving with the DPL authority), we can send out infos on a regular basis [22:58:46]
  309. <SteveMcIntyre> encourage them to shout it to the world :-) [22:58:52]
  310. <don_armstrong> what do you all feel about the DM process? [22:58:58]
  311. * SteveMcIntyre refrains from starting to sing, my housemate is back in now [22:59:06]
  312. <don_armstrong> what are is positive aspects? what do you dislike about it? What would you change about it? [22:59:17]
  313. <MarcBrockschmidt> RaphaelHertzog: I simply don't believe that people who are too busy will start writing stuff in wiki's how they feel to be to busy. That's unrealistic [22:59:23]
  314. <SteveMcIntyre> DM can be a help to us, but I'm still watching to see how it pans out [23:00:14]
  315. <MarcBrockschmidt> I've advocated something like DM in my posting to dda to which I refered earlier. I like the general idea - but I'm not too happy with the implementation. [23:00:14]
  316. <don_armstrong> MarcBrockschmidt: what in particular would you change about the implementation? [23:00:30]
  317. <SteveMcIntyre> to a certain extent, we have set it up to work around NM issues, and I'm not sure that's for the best [23:00:42]
  318. <SteveMcIntyre> however, it will allow some of our eager contributors a quicker way to uploads and the recognition that come with them [23:01:07]
  319. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: what do you feel are the issues with NM now? [23:01:13]
  320. <RaphaelHertzog> I'm happy that we have DM, I agree that it's not perfect but I really think we made the good choice by approving it instead of postponing it to later when we have something even better [23:01:26]
  321. <SteveMcIntyre> NM is clearly taking too long, I don't think many would disagree with that [23:01:43]
  322. <SteveMcIntyre> the steps where people are working on things are fine [23:01:55]
  323. <MarcBrockschmidt> I don't believe that changing DM will happen. What I don't like is how the Uploaders field was abused for the new meaning of "this is a non-DD who is allowed to upload without supervision". I would like to have a field in the Sources.gz listing explicitly which DM is allowed to upload without sponsoring and who is maintaing the package through a sponsor (and both should be possible in parallel) [23:02:13]
  324. <RaphaelHertzog> it it's not perfect, we have time to correct it, and the "live" experience is useful to fine tune the process if needed [23:02:15]
  325. <SteveMcIntyre> and I think it's not too bad to have an extended process - we are seelecting for people who will stay around [23:02:20]
  326. <don_armstrong> would you want to remove the DM process if the issues with NM are fixed? [23:02:36]
  327. <MarcBrockschmidt> No. [23:02:44]
  328. <SteveMcIntyre> however, once people have demonstrated skills/worthiness/patience, then we should let them in faster [23:02:49]
  329. * SteveMcIntyre nods MarcBrockschmidt [23:02:53]
  330. <RaphaelHertzog> No as well. [23:02:54]
  331. <SteveMcIntyre> DM will still be useful [23:02:58]
  332. <don_armstrong> It seems Debian is falling behind other big distros when it comes to acceptance in corporate environments, where people seem to prefer Ubuntu, RH, etc over Debian. Do you view this as a problem, and if so, do you have ideas on how to change it? [23:03:09]
  333. <MarcBrockschmidt> I have quite a lot experience with NMs and I firmly believe that DM has a different audience than the usual NM track to becoming a DD [23:03:12]
  334. <RaphaelHertzog> I'd like to have statistics in the duration of involvement from contributors. While we have many long-time contriubutors, we have many who contribute for no more than a year or two. [23:04:04]
  335. <SteveMcIntyre> Debian is probably always going to be a difficult sell in the biggest of corporate environments [23:04:23]
  336. <don_armstrong> RaphaelHertzog: do you have any ideas about rewarding casual contributors? [23:04:26]
  337. <don_armstrong> SteveMcIntyre: any ways you can think of to make it easier? [23:04:45]
  338. <MarcBrockschmidt> don_armstrong: I have to admit that we at credativ were successful in getting big corporations and government agencies to accept Debian some times. I simply don't see us falling behind. [23:04:57]
  339. <SteveMcIntyre> when other groups can sell on brand names, marketing and support contract then we have to work all the harder [23:05:04]
  340. <RaphaelHertzog> don_armstrong: well, the best reward is when the work is used [23:05:12]
  341. <SteveMcIntyre> as more people recognise us for what we do, then I believe things will improve [23:05:27]
  342. <RaphaelHertzog> casual contributors send patches, but when it rots in the BTS, it doesn't motivate them to continue [23:05:32]
  343. <SteveMcIntyre> hey, my company is now using Debian almost exclusively for engineers' desktops [23:05:56]
  344. <SteveMcIntyre> which is very nice :-) [23:06:01]
  345. <don_armstrong> just for the record, aproximately how much time per week do you all have available to dedicate to Debian? [23:06:29]
  346. <SteveMcIntyre> great companies like Credativ, hands.com and HP can also spread the word for us [23:06:29]
  347. <SteveMcIntyre> (to pick 3 completely different-sized groups) [23:07:05]
  348. <SteveMcIntyre> I normally have about 10-15 hours per week to spend on Debian [23:07:25]
  349. <SteveMcIntyre> that's average: some weeks it may be less if I have family commitments (for example), while in others I may spend more time doing Debian than my normal day job [23:08:08]
  350. <RaphaelHertzog> don_armstrong: "it depends", I have spend full weeks while working on the symbols stuff (dpkg-shlibdeps), but usually I spend between 2-5 hours in week days [23:08:11]
  351. <MarcBrockschmidt> I'm usually spending between 10 and 25 hours per week on Debian, depending on the work that needs to be done [23:08:29]
  352. <don_armstrong> what in particular do you plan to do as DPL to help lenny release? [23:09:05]
  353. <SteveMcIntyre> there's not a *huge* amount that's up to the DPL about that [23:10:20]
  354. <RaphaelHertzog> I tend to work by project and when I start something I easily allocate "work time" even if I don't earn anything from that... and it's not completely true as my own company is selling services around Debian anyway. [23:10:23]
  355. <MarcBrockschmidt> Do the regular release stuff instead of spending more time on DPL tasks. I also don't think that the DPL can do much to help with the release. Releasing is mostly a technical problem, nothing the DPL could influence [23:10:30]
  356. <SteveMcIntyre> I'll be doing the usual: working on bugs, trying to help the release however I can [23:10:44]
  357. <SteveMcIntyre> doing some of the release work myself (CDs, DVDs, etc.) [23:10:56]
  358. <RaphaelHertzog> don_armstrong: beat MarcBrockschmidt in this election so that he continues NMUing packages by hundreds :-) [23:11:12]
  359. <SteveMcIntyre> *grin* [23:11:29]
  360. <SteveMcIntyre> so, my question to the other two... [23:11:56]
  361. <SteveMcIntyre> MarcBrockschmidt / RaphaelHertzog : are you coming to Debconf this year? [23:12:09]
  362. <RaphaelHertzog> otherwise I'll just support the release team as best as I can, but they do not really need the help of DPL [23:12:24]
  363. * SteveMcIntyre twiddles his thumbs waiting for an answer [23:13:45]
  364. <RaphaelHertzog> SteveMcIntyre: Unfortunately no. Hopefully Lucas and/or Moritz will represent the DPL seat there. [23:13:46]
  365. <RaphaelHertzog> (if I'm elected that is) [23:13:54]
  366. <MarcBrockschmidt> SteveMcIntyre: Until now, I haven't planned to do so. I believe that as DPL, I would have to do it, but as regular developer, I would prefer to spend more time on more local conferences and not spend a gigantic amount of money to fly me around the globe [23:13:55]
  367. <don_armstrong> lets start wrapping up then: what specifically differentiates you between your fellow candidates? [23:14:23]
  368. <SteveMcIntyre> hmmm [23:16:31]
  369. <don_armstrong> nothing does? ;-) [23:16:45]
  370. <RaphaelHertzog> I'm older than Marc but younger than Stev I believe. Otherwise we share lots of ideas and I believe that whoever gets elected, we'll probably work together on some aspects as we're all very active members. [23:16:54]
  371. <SteveMcIntyre> my enthusiasm and dedication to Debian; I've been working on this project for over 11 years, and I'm still here wanting to do more [23:17:00]
  372. <RaphaelHertzog> SteveMcIntyre: are you claiming MarcBrockschmidt and me are not dedicated ? :-) [23:17:57]
  373. <SteveMcIntyre> RaphaelHertzog: ok, commitment might be a better word: maybe I should be committed *grin* [23:18:21]
  374. <don_armstrong> thanks everyone; I think that just about covers the questions that I had [23:18:42]
  375. <MarcBrockschmidt> I don't think we differ that much. Raphael is leaning heavily on the idea that teams could solve many problems, I'm not so sure about that. I think the differences between Steve and me are very small. [23:18:47]
  376. <MarcBrockschmidt> [The differences in goals, FWIW, not in personality] [23:18:58]
  377. <SteveMcIntyre> I'd second that I think [23:19:08]
  378. <SteveMcIntyre> so, thanks to everybody (especially our ever hard-working moderators) [23:19:38]
  379. <don_armstrong> I'd like to take this moment to thank slef, NeilMcGovern, and moray; as well as all of the other people who have sent in questions. If the debate has raised additional questions, don't forget to ask them in -vote [23:19:52]
  380. <SteveMcIntyre> we still have some more time for campaign questions on -vote, so please feel free to ask us more questions there or privately, folks [23:20:18]
  381. <don_armstrong> voting starts next week. Thanks to the candidates as well. [23:20:22]
  382. <RaphaelHertzog> thanks to everybody, and good luck to Steve and Marc! [23:20:29]
  383. <SteveMcIntyre> group hug! :-) [23:20:31]
  384. <MarcBrockschmidt> Thanks for your work, Don, and now let's have a group hug and display that we are all proposing the same and it doesn't matter who gets elected :-P [23:20:55]
  385. <don_armstrong> good luck everyone [23:21:11]
  386. * RaphaelHertzog joins the hug party [23:21:11]
  387. <SteveMcIntyre> \o/ [23:21:28]
  388. <SteveMcIntyre> now where's Ganneff? he needs a hug too *grin* [23:21:48]
  389. <Ganneff> no way [23:21:58]
  390. <don_armstrong> that'll have to happen in -discuss; feel free to continue your discussions there. ;-) [23:22:07]
  391. <SteveMcIntyre> thanks folks, I'll catch up on logs later but I need to run for a bit [23:22:20]
  392. <Maulkin> Want this channel cycling then? [23:23:24]