 Ich möchte erst einmal einen Aussprache über some of the ideas we had already been floating out of the list. I think most of you should go to a discussion, it hopefully will come and we will have some outputs that we really can work on. Move them towards GR and actually just makes them live. That's at least the hopes that I have for this talk. Erstens, wer hat unsere Gouverneut in den Worten, was die Dokumente überhört? Wir haben die Konstitution, die die Dokumente über die Gouverneut betrifft, aber die nicht. Dann haben wir ein paar usualen Practices, wie jeder weiß, wie wir das tun. Wir haben viele verschiedene Code für Kontakt. Das ist eine Bedeutung, das nicht gebraucht ist. Weil es wirklich, auch wenn es in vielen Taten nicht die Demokratie ist, es wirklich funktioniert. Wir sollten das in der Meinung halten. Aber vorhin der Partei der Gouverneut ist, was ist unsere Konstitution? Ich habe mich als Gouverneut im Worten gestürzt. Yes, because mostly we don't, we just don't see it, but our institution says who has power in the millions that are all the developers together by general solution or by election. The branch of leader, the technical committee, the individual developers, the delegates, the secretary. So, actually, there's some more governance we don't see by the individual developers, not by established teams somehow, I'm not clear with the definition what established means, but we have a hand out, and of course also if you don't like it, but blame was on great, well, I'm not saying source of helpful governance, but they change something. Often in a way we don't like. There's a formal governance, what does all the developers mean by a general solution? They often take very long to come to an the side. I don't know how long it took for the solution about the firm, the G.R. exception for it. Seemanns, Vormanns, something like that. And even then it wasn't the solution. It wasn't the solution. We just had a status where we could survive for a few more months. So, it's very painful often for us. So, we actually don't use it so often, because our experience was so bad. In elections, well, it's actually only one election, and that's a deeper budget leader. Then, yeah, as I said, basically, actual governance by all the developers, not really much. The budget leader has form, it's a formal governance, what the budget leader has. So, he has to delegate and re-delegate tasks, and even to un-delegate tasks. And to do it forcefully. He can make any decision which requires urgent action. I think he can make decisions about property and such organizations, but he can't all his decisions, which are all done by delegates. So, actually, it looks a bit different. I can remember only one force for re-delegation, but I've been a developer only for four years now. So, actually, the re-delegation of the Debt-Con-Vegging-Decision for this year's Debt-Con, by the way. What are you laughing at? Oh, yes. On policy team, you arrived a second time. I just forgot. But actually, delegations, so you see how much important it was, actually, after all. But delegations are only very seldom used. In other words, in Mainz, who was of power in Debian, I personally can't remember any urgent action decision that happened in any moment. But, as I said, I'm only a Debian developer now for four years, so it might have been before. Yes, of course, what you'd like to know the last is the next decision about Debt-Con-Property. Many means giving out money for hardware, for meeting, whatever, which is of course a fairly important task and which seems to work fairly well. What you also ask, which isn't in the constitution, he's the representative of the board ship. He levels to conferences, attends conferences for Debian, makes keynotes, whatever. Even if it's not actually a current DPA does it, even if it's a former DPA is still doing a regular basis. And DPA, actually, he needs to convince the people in Debian if he wants to change something, which isn't in the constitution, but which is actually the way it's happening now. Is technical committee, could the sign any untechnical policy, design anything in the matter where developers' jurisdictions overlap? Overrule a developer, by certain authority only, and its members are not elected at this time, but they co-op no new members in, if needed. Details in the constitution, just how it generally works. So, actually, we overrule not so often, I think. I can't remember one case where we actually overruled and put that to force, and overruled by the permissions of some strange device nodes. We actually just removed the overruling of the MB5-Sams. And some people, especially the one person, try to use it to escalate non-technical issues, which we just didn't like. So, as individual developers, of course they are a very important part, because most of the Debian don't have an attention level, that most of us see, but just haven't an updated territory basis, and that's what the normal developer do. Yes, so, that's what governance, and which is both in the constitution, and which actually happened. Delegates actually have the powers delegated to them by the project leader. They may, they even may make certain decisions, which the project leader himself may not make, like playing developers, für das von der Konstitution corporate. But actually, Delegates are not surveying how we do normal in Debian. Some one starts working on tasks, becomes better on the task, become somehow senior person, then has certain tasks, certain responsibilities, without being delegated. We have cases where we are not sure, if someone is delegated or not. And delegations don't need to be public. The DPL could make a private delegation so Zangster Zanghorn ist now super loaded, all different machines, which he could just make a private. It won't be effective anyways, but that's about Delegates. Yes, so what we have as governance, which is not part of the constitution, but which actually is an important part of our governance is, we have established teams, basically say co-op new members somehow, like the least team, das und kein Teil. Also teams do it by different ways. For example, das Voltscherchorns Team has now obviously the right to forcefully open packages of our maintenance, because they are doing it for something like 5 years now and nobody really complained, except one developer, who has been expelled for other reasons. Well, the people who would complain aren't just around. The people who would complain about that are technically not around. Zanghorn, zanghorn, zanghorn, zanghorn, zanghorn. So actually, actually I would say the half the power now. Because we are doing it for 5 years so yes, that's okay. Basically, the established teams, also the power centers in Berlin, also important teams, not delegated co-op new members in trust work in zanghorn. So, the seventh idea is for future governance. We have discussed about the concept of discuss about elsewhere, zu viel vor Wohngörsen. Das heißt, es ist noch so ein Last-Success, dass die Developers von anderen wollen, die wollen zuhause ein Team. Last year, Anthony hat ein Co-DPL, das ist ein Runden-Culturen für unser Team, aber das ist noch der Fall, was die Konstitution sagt, in der diese Meinopinie-Werkfalle hält. Das heißt, es ist eine riesige Diskussion über die Sozial- und Technik-Komitee. Wohngörsen von mir ist, die Konstitutionen, die wir jetzt haben, sind noch so wie wir sie eigentlich benutzen. So, das ist schon der Fall. Oder du hast Wohngörsen auf die Konstitutionen, die Basis bei Samsung ist, das macht Wohngörsen besser. Ist das eine Reihe, du möchtest in Knutze, als Technik-Team, in unsere Konstitutionen, in unserem Praktis, oder mehr später, zu jeder anderen. Wie schuldest du die Konstitution? Du benietest die Konstitution? Ich sehe, wie die Technik-Komitee ist, oder was anderes, ich sehe was von diesen. Aber ich glaube, wie schuldest du die Konstitution? Schutest du die Konstitutioner, die auf die Konstitution, oder einfach Corrupt, zum Selbst Fields, aber natürlich auch nicht zu beelenden, sondern um die ordentlichste Zeit, oder um die von der ersten Zeit, Zeit, wo ich meist mal bitte auch in der Diskussion bin, und ich hoffe, dass es uns helfen wird zu bekommen. Vielen Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit. Das ist die Manosche, das ist die Förderstelle. Okay. Okay, ich meine, das ist die Förderstelle. Wir haben noch eine Technik-Comedy in den anderen Leuten. Okay, du, wir haben eine Microphone. Peter? Okay. Hi. Hi. Hallo. The question was about the minor literature about the policy. I don't think it goes into governance because it tells a technique supposed to be, even though it currently is not. It's supposed to be a technical document that tells you whether your package is working correctly or not. It is not supposed to have the governance aspect built into it. I can't answer to that. Actually, I didn't say, these are the documents that want to describe how the governance works. I said, these are the documents. Basically, I said that when you can read about the current governance somehow, documents are not all current, some are conflicting, but basically if you read all of them and look a little bit at the mailings, you'll see how most parts work. I think that's the current description of the current status. Without anything saying, I like it or not. Trust me. Is it certain way? The second part that I have was about current themes. I'm not sure that it is obvious that any theme in Demian, just because it was formulated before we had a constitution, somehow stayed out of the jurisdiction of the constitution, when we adopted the constitution itself. If you go back and look at the vote, it was, for the people who voted, it was unanimously accepted. And ideally at that point, all forward, all everything that allows you to use Demian resources was redirected to flow back down through the election, through the project leaders, and back down through the delegates. Whether or not the delegates acknowledge that they are delegates, then I'm very sure. If there is some confusion in that, then I suggest that we kind of create new delegates to agree with our constitution and make a smaller power over it. Actually, I think that's a really interesting point here. Looking at the forms of the constitution, I fully agree with you. But actually, I think also, looking at how that works, we don't, just basically, we don't use the constitution as often as we could, and it works very well. So, I'm not always sure that one has to adjust a little bit to the constitution, but sometimes also otherwise. I'm currently not sure which is the correct thing. Just think, we have acknowledged currently the established teams, und sagen wir eben, established after the constitution was created, like the release team. The established teams have a lot of power, and not seek to delegate. And whatever we like it or not, we can discuss afterwards, and how good we like it to be. I think that's an important question. Should we adjust a few parts of reality? Or should we adjust a few parts of the constitution? It's also okay. Yeah, I completely agree with what Andy said. So, when I originally wrote that bit about delegates, I definitely had in mind precisely these teams, but it's quite reasonable for somebody else to hold a different view. I don't think we should, for example, take confusion, we should fire people who are doing a good job, because they have some disagreement about some technical governance matter. What we have really at the moment is, because our actual practice and our formal constitution are so different, it makes it difficult to fix difficulties with these teams, because they're so much outside the normal flow of power structure, and the day-a-day factor are so different. And we really need to, as Andy says, I think we need to adjust the constitution to recognise the situation. And hopefully we can come up with something that everybody will not be happy with. So, next one. I just wanted to say that they are respecting the constitution. The point is that they think they are not delegated. It means, if we do a year to say something else and they think to say, can say, is delegated or if the professor delegates, they will accept the outcome. It's just that currently they don't think and they say so that they are not delegated. But they do respect the constitution. Actually, anything I said, but if somebody understood me, as I would say, somebody doesn't respect the constitution, they would be totally wrong. I'm not sure that everybody in the city respects the constitution, but at least almost all of them, especially all of them, in the corporate, in the established teams, really accept it. So, they are perhaps different. And some of them don't really see the constitution as something that is, well, no influence of the constitution, so they were, because they don't respect it. They just don't have any impact. So, in fact, I want to give a little bit of a difference here. Actually, I would like a small warning about the current system of delegates. Because it looks a bit inconsistent to me to say, we have one person, who can just see delegated, and unrelegated, and whatever he likes. But he cannot override any decision of the delegates. Also, ja, vielleicht könnte es auch sein, dass es sich um die Elegationsarbeit geändert hat, und dann bringt es einen neuen Team, um das neue Weg zu machen, was wir dann nennen. Also, lasst es sein? Ich glaube, das nächste? Ich glaube, eine der Themen ist, was wir eigentlich versuchen, zu fixen. Ich glaube, dass es verschiedene Menschen haben, verschiedene Opinien auf das, und das ist eine der Grund, warum es schwer ist, über die Regierung zu sprechen, weil ich glaube, die Menschen haben verschiedene Perspektive an, was eigentlich falsch ist, und was wir eigentlich versuchen, zu fixen. Es fühlt sich so, dass es viele Menschen sind, die ein Problem haben, dass die Regierung die Struktur informiert ist, und dass wir nicht wirklich die Struktur der Konstruktion benutzen, um Dinge zu verändern. Und auch, dass, wenn die Regierung die Struktur arbeitet, wir die Formeldescription der Regierung die Struktur machen, und das, was wir jetzt tun, wenn wir das, was wir jetzt tun, funktioniert. Ich glaube, es gibt einen Camp, der so ist. Ich glaube, es gibt verschiedene Camps, die wie wir jetzt arbeiten, was wir jetzt tun, nicht funktioniert. Und wie wir die Konstruktion der Konstruktion beobachten sollten, wird geändert. Die meisten Objektionen, die da sind, sind usually around transparency, or membership and workings, or things along those lines. And you know, those are two really different kind of directions to take the thing, and it's not clear whether the folks that want to have specific problems that they want to fix really care whether the informal governance matches the informal governance, or they just want the problem to go away, and if we can do that informally, that's fine. And part of what goes into this is that many of the problems we're running into, particularly the problems we're running into around the social committee proposals, are being their hard problems, and it's not clear that they're governance problems. They're social problems, and coming up with a governance structure means that you have a structure in which to deal with them, but it doesn't mean that you can necessarily resolve them. You still need to have people who can work with other people. And all the written constitutions in the world don't give you that necessarily. So, next one is Colin. Okay, Colin, I don't mind. Colin is an eye. So, basically in the issue of governance, I think we are beating around the bush here. So, the core problem that we have had in the last few years, maybe a few, maybe eight, maybe, I don't know how many, is that some infrastructure teams cannot be overridden by anyone, including the current managers and the system administrators. Problems in those teams cannot be escalated anywhere. There is no higher instance. So, in effect, they are as powerful or more powerful as the project leader. So, what are we trying to fix? These teams have to be fixed in a way that's orthogonal. The solution is orthogonal to whether we have a formal method of electing them or an informal method. We don't have any method of fixing them. We should concentrate on the concrete problem. Social committee may fix some social problems. This DBL team might fix this other problem. The core problem is that we are not doing something basically essential. Someone has to have the balls to go to the team member who is being completely obstructing to process and say, okay, you're not doing your work very well. Okay, everybody thinks you're not doing that work very well. Can you please either step aside or teach someone else or have a cookie or something. We need to do something about concrete problems. None of these other team problems are so critical as teams that cannot be overridden. There's the main problem with governance in DBL. Next is Sen Colin. I was going to make another comment and a response to RASP. Firstly, I think one of the original intents of the Constitutional entity and I'm sure it can correct me if I'm wrong was that people who are doing the work should not be arbitrarily overridden by somebody who hasn't been doing the work in order to govern the entire project. Plus, we may have gone a little too far in that there are no checks sometimes, but I don't think we should drift all the way to having nothing but checks and balances and people getting ripped out of their jobs every year because the deputy project leader doesn't like the color of their hair. I think it is worthwhile considering the people who are doing their jobs well that they have certain rights to stay in positions early because by virtue they are doing a good job. The other thing I wanted to say in response to RASP as far as established teams are concerned that it works well and it works well and it needs to be clarified. For the FOX.TV-Jourg, that means I was active in that sort of years, not anymore, but still present. One of the problems that we occasionally saw, that wasn't a large problem but was there, was that people, that had to know, there was no visible basis for why we had the access we did to deafening property, the FOX.TV-Jourg-Server, where these machines came from. I think eventually somebody else said everybody who is in these positions is hereby delegated and it's a little bit of a problem to go away. But in the eyes of many people it was a problem for a while Okay, Peter wants to make an administration remark which is of course distance. I want to say something, joy and then I am. Okay, now for Peter. The only thing I want to say is please be close to the mic because I love you. Thank you. I hope now to follow your advices. Okay, okay. Also, if you are not introduced already yourself please say your name. So, against what I want to say to you I think I am in a different camp than you said. I am in a camp where I just say when actually what we do mostly works I know that there are a few problems by joy and consent but actually most things works and what I really don't like to see is that we have one constitution in a set of practices and there is no way to fix problems if they appear because we just don't apply the constitution in reality. So, I want to bring these two together and find a way how to fix the issues in the court in case we might have one. So, now joy is the next one. Okay, okay. Where is the microphone? I have a new one. So, I just made a list of the types of disputes. We are talking about governance. Governance is about conflict and about how we decide what we do when people disagree with each other and I have got a list of five things here that we have been arguing about. So, we have got the core teams problem which some people think is more of a problem than others and certainly there has been a lot of arguments about that and our current mechanism is not working until it is not working because no decision has been taken and our governance mechanism has failed because it has not taken a decision. We have had a lot of copyright licensing arguments and it is evident that our system there is quite broken because we keep having to escalate our decisions to our kind of ultimate authority and past general resolutions and this proves that Debbie and Michael is broken. We have got the problem of people flaming und being useless and crappy and not getting on with each other and normally in any normal situation you give people a bit of a private warning and then you ban them from making lists or something or every other normal organisation has some mechanism like that and we don't have a mechanism like that as well. So, again, we have to escalate it to the most extreme possible sanctions. We do have one more or less working thing which is the technical committee although it is suffering very much from nobody bringing any questions to it at all because if you evolve in conflict and disagreement in Debian every other area of disagreement in Debian is enormous doom and if you have an argument with somebody the last thing you want to do is to escalate it because it is just going to become terrible so I think people just don't use that and then of course there is dump tank which I don't want to say anymore. Okay, Nächste. Manu? Was du gesagt hast about technical committee not getting questions my experience with technical committee is that they are very good at postponing decisions about tough subjects. Yes, I mean the two proper reports that Sven filed in this case and I think that's unfortunate because that actually contributed to the fact that everything continued. So, it would be nice if the technical committee is offered an issue that they would actually deal with the issue instead of just delaying it. Manu? Coming back to whether we need to change the constitution or we need to change our current practice if the current practice is working and differs from the constitution it does make sense that we go back and fix the constitution. I think that if you can informally hold you would find that most people think that our current government structure are broken. So, we don't want to hard hold all that back in our constitution because it would make a harder place. We need to fix the problems first and then put in the fixed government structure in the constitution. So, the next one is on Laumis and Baxis and the last. So, actually Manu what the synthesis thing is is that our daily government obviously works. If it wouldn't work, we would not have any release in the last five years. So, actually what we do at day basis works very well. I think we most agree to that. But actually what doesn't work is why escalated issues and topics. We all know like as you said before there is no way for example to really overwrite the deputy system of ministers unknowingly if it's necessary or not. And of course they wouldn't like an easy way to save a current DPL which has the place out of them which might follow more current constitution which also wouldn't be so of a problem. But help in making problems less escalated makes people working a casual common solution. So, that's part of good governance that people can after the solution work together again and better than before. And that's something I would like to achieve. So, now. Okay, I just want to say that our current model is a co-optation mainly for BDS it's true for Leastmasters everywhere. And it's the same model that is used by the problematic teams for DSA like to pre-master. The only thing is that we have problems with the members who are not really acknowledging the fact that they are lacking manpower. And over that there is also personal problem between members of those teams who are involved over the years and you don't get to solve that by deciding it. You need to deal with each other its private issues and it's difficult to go forward. But in any case I'm not sure that firing them is the right solution. I'm sure it's not, in fact. And I just wanted to respond to Joy at one. Yes, we have a way to override them if you want to. We have GR and they will respect any outcome of a GR. It's just that we avoid that whenever possible. If needed, we will come to that one. Can we just allow Joy to answer that? Okay. I was maybe too much concentration on we don't have a method to escalate it's always to the top authority. We don't have medium solutions in our governance model. We don't have a governance model. We have one and zero. It's pretty much binding. Either it's just kevins and it works or well it doesn't work. And there's basically no way to fix it which is barely any code. We only have unfriendly ways to fix things and those are way to fix things. They are a way to change things but you can't make giant changes like that. Okay. So, now next class. Colin. Okay. You. I want to give back to one of the previous points which was the point of the idea of governance is that you are making decisions and you haven't actually exercised governance. I think that that's a really vital thing to keep in mind in terms of success. If we think about what having good governance, having better governance in many means, I think a lot of that involves actually making decisions in a way in which everyone in the project agrees that a decision was actually made. We make a lot of decisions by default or we make a lot of decisions by ignoring the problems also on one side and there's also a lot of decisions that have been made implicitly that have never been made explicitly which I think contributes a lot to the flame wars because it leaves open the possibility for people to argue endlessly that there's no actual decision that's ever been really made. I think this has come up in several different respects but to take one that I raised recently on Debbie's vote, we have these criteria that are being applied as far as I can tell. We have these criteria that we're applying to judge license rules the desert island test the Chinese business test or I think the business test that's been renamed and they don't exist in the stated form anywhere in our documents. People disagree to some extent over whether or not they're implied by different pieces of the social contract or so on and so forth but that's a dispute. So we have a license evaluation. So a successful governance in that area would be making a decision and having everyone in the project agree whether they like the decision or not that the decision was actually made. You read some sense of conclusion on the topic and maybe we then don't keep discussing and we don't keep having some people progressing with the idea that the decision wasn't made and some people progressing with the idea that it was. Okay, so. Okay, is that the sentence next? So. It's deep after. Okay. I'll be talking about the core teams first. Are you speaking as the developer? I'm speaking as the developer. I'm speaking as the developer. Okay. So. Well, the question whether the teams could be overrated or not has already been addressed so I agree that a GR can overwrite these teams and I know no one in the delegated or not delegated teams who would disagree with the results of the GR. However, I can't perfectly live with these teams not believing they are delegates if there are other ways to fix them. So it's true that these teams are either broken or dysfunctional or anything and I also believe they can't fix themselves alone. That's why I'm trying to help them. I also said in my platform that I would add new people to these teams and I never said that I would fire anyone from these teams or at least I don't remember saying that. Because the people in this team I would hate to see them go away from the team or even from them and if you don't carefully this is the kind of thing that might happen because I talked about five problems in Devin and I think that they are all more less related to people not getting along together very well and so there's a lot of mediation required and I'm really working on that I want you to believe me about that and I think it will eventually work however even if I don't believe GR to I don't know make a revolution inside Devin is a good idea it's always possible if you believe it's not going fast enough but try to trust me on a few things and please don't hesitate to tell me anything about what you believe is going on and what you don't know and I will share the information I have that I believe can be shared and make public or semi public I will not disclose anything private because there are private matters that are really important concerning the relationship between people and that I will not disclose please talk to me about it and well even it's just to tell me there's a problem about this and just to get an idea of how many people believe there's a problem but of course if you want to help to other people and so on that's also very welcome I have so far received a lot offers to help to integrate the other teams and so on so now let's speak Hi one of the biggest issues that I've seen what I've been in Debian for the last few years is a lot of teams we've talked about already and some of the other teams it's frankly just burnout we've got too many people involved in too many teams they don't have the time to do the job they want to do they don't have the time to do the degree to do they don't have the time to tell other people what they're doing they don't have the time to help new people get started so that's what we end up with a lot of problems we need a way of easing those people out of trying to help them as much as possible instead we've ended up with some disagreements on mailing lists where they get flamed I don't even see some of these discussions that are going on but because they're seen as being quiet and not getting involved they get flamed for it if we can somehow ease that I'd love some more ideas on this that would be a big help for all of us Okay, so now I'll put myself on the list and set a statement and it's a joy Okay, so now it's about to remember how many people these are more than four people in advance Okay, now actually what I think is what you've already said before about our five different issues yes, I think we have a different area of issues it's not all about FTP Masters so we sometimes have issues actually most part of what FTP Masters role is about actually works, our art shop works we can upload packages, use process remove a process as often as I would like so most parts even in the teams people that have been flamed by often will say this way now even these parts mostly work so we really need to be a bit of careful to just fix the issues and not do overload and I think we have more issues than only speaking about the teams on the other hand I need to disagree a bit with you you said we have a social problem I doubt that for example the leistings issues are not social at all and whether we apply it to the island or not it's not a social question we just need to decide, we do it we don't do it and then we are done I have a personal opinion on it but even if it would end in difference than I would like I would sit in a situation to further discussion we can work from there on and go on to the next issues so a lot of things you can solve some you can't solve some are a little more social so okay, now is the next one please so this actually this is what Steve was saying about burnout when I started working on the x-strike course and stuff it was very clear right off the bat there was no sort of roadmap for individual developers we have a policy we have a lot of guidelines to help people along for running a proper team structuring a team correctly we don't have anything like that and I think that's what allows this sort of thing to happen where people get burned out they don't know how to give up the reins here's what you need to document or how you need to document it I've been sort of thinking for the past few years about how to document these things and create sort of a structure within a team leader or how to kick the leader out in all these things quite a parcel in grad school exactly, how to pass on those how just to deal with all these problems we don't have that sort of thing that's why this thing escalates where we do have a structure for this large scale governance I think within the teams we need some sort of model with each team can draw on to sort of govern each team individually if we look at what do we get if we look at what do we get DI is my model actually my time on the DI team was my model so now I have to admit a mistake because I've ignored some of the signs quite some why so you would like to be you would want to say something and then you go to the troll you, Andreas most of the decision that I have taken online you know we've managed discussions g.a. our email voting system and whatsoever but during the last five years I've seen some teams actually making decisions with face-to-face meetings and it's another sevens that come why not introduce some kind of formal time of face-to-face decision meeting and decision taking time so we could make a tough decision face-to-face dividing that lively so we could sort things out more quickly there is actually tools turnable people to take decisions being more than 200 people in the same room I would like make a list there is a few of them myself so it's just something to think about next a little bit a concrete thing Anthony Townes in one of his mails to the project mailing list about a couple of weeks ago mentioned a method that would rejuvenate the teams a method that when new members could apply and then how the old members would accept them and all these things and I replied and I wrote it out a little bit more time frames and things like that so that's one way of achieving a higher goal a higher goal would be making the teams layered so there isn't just the binary state either you are in the team or you are out either you rule or you suck that's not the way it should be so and at the same time I'm both the one who complains and the one about whom other people complain I'm one of those old parts, new parts how do you say that I've been here around and then I went on a hiatus burnout as Steve just said it wasn't really burnout I just drifted away one day and I thought I had made all the steps necessary so that the universe doesn't explode without me and the universe did not explode without me but some things really died out without me and some things were stuck for months or some are even stuck today because I went missing so let's not get into the you are not in the team you don't understand how hard it is or you don't know what burnout is I just like that to be noted I have been on the receiving end and on the giving end of that whole problem so I still think that we need to make many layers make escalation possible make small escalations possible and one of the concrete things recommender okay so now I just noticed in US in Mexico about 20 minutes left so I think I know about 10 people who want to say something so who really wants to say something before we finish here please ask my hand again so that we finish with all the people who okay so we now know all I think we have the last one please don't after that and then we can finish talk to you discussion afterwards so I just wanted to say that all the governments in the world isn't going to make people get along and the most important thing is that everybody respect each other and if you are wrong that's a very important point and one other thing I wanted to say is that in case of time-based releases of course I'm not going to endorse it but I do think that might be some government that you guys might not think about okay please I think that we have a two-edged problem generally with regard to making decisions and leadership in general on the one hand side we don't have a process a process but a practice um um um um Das ist eine Art von jemandem, der in der Leadership gewohnt ist. Und auf der anderen Seite haben wir nicht einen Prozess für die Menschen, die in der Leadership gewohnt sind. Wir müssen auch ... Und die eine Art, wie wir das haben, ist die kleinen Teams, die ich vor vier Jahren gesprochen habe, die es easy zu bauern, zu helfen, dass die Leaders die Verantwortung haben. Langsamer, mehr. Wir haben einen neuen Leadership-Talent in der Gruppe gefunden. Wir entwickeln ihn oder sie. Und wir sehen auch die anderen Menschen in der Gruppe. Ich habe andere Menschen in der Gruppe gesehen, dass dieser Person besser ist. Und es ist eigentlich traurig. Und vielleicht könnte es ein Prozess sein, oder ein Detail zu geben, um die Menschen mehr Verantwortung haben, damit sie vielleicht mehr ... Wir haben einen neuen Leadership-Talent. Und wir ... Ich glaube, niemand glaubt, aber Anarchy ist die Antwort. Ja, danke. Okay, so ... Ich erinnere mich jetzt auf den nächsten Titel. Ich bin Steve, mich, Baxi, Ein, Colin, Sam, und ich sage es. Wenn jemand aus dem Platz ist, sagt er jetzt, dass es für dich nichts ist. Okay, Steve. Ein weiterer Punkt. Wir haben einen schönen Habit, mit kleinen Teams zu tun. Wir sind mit kleinen Teams, ein bisschen eine Person, zwei, drei, was so. Wir sind diejenigen, die eigentlich immer ein Problem haben. Wenn du es zeigst, kannst du es tun. Du kannst es tun, und du kannst es tun, gut. Aber niemand ist wirklich ... Er kommt zu helfen, zumindest ist das meine Erfahrung. Das bedeutet, dass du immer wieder ein bisschen busierer und busierer und busierer bist. Es ist sehr einfach, dass du nicht helfen kannst, aber es ist auch sehr schwierig, über die Weise zu starten, um andere Menschen zu verabschieden. AJ and I talked a little bit last year, ich bin nicht mit dem Stil, das war seine Idee. Er hatte eine Suggestion, dass wir, was sie nennen, einen Busfaktor-Test zu picken. Normalerweise von 14 Teams, wir picken und sagen, wir haben einen Busfaktor, wir leben in diesem Gebiet, und das sehen wir, wie gut wir gehen. Das wäre ein schönes Insens, für vier Menschen, was sie machen, und um andere Menschen zu helfen. Ich denke, das war es nun mir. Ich möchte sagen, wir haben viele Gebieter, die sagen, dass wir sehr gut arbeiten. Natürlich haben wir Bier, wenn wir jetzt über die Liste sprechen. Wir haben eine neue Team, in der wir, dass wir uns über die Liste nennen. Wir haben jetzt viele neue Menschen, weil wir haben 7 Personen, die Interesse haben. Dann haben wir für die Fantastischen Kinder twice, basically ein neues M-Prozess, um ihnen zu lernen, was wir tun müssen, dass sie die Knowledge haben wollen. Als Ende dieses Prozesses, haben wir vier Menschen. Und du checkst die Kommission, was wir tun? Wir checken die Kommission, wenn sie es tun können, wenn sie es tun können. Es sind vier Menschen, die leben, und wir waren sehr hart. Wir wussten, dass jeder, der die M-Prozess antwortet, das war akzeptiert. Das ist zu hart, ja? Aber von diesen vier Menschen, jetzt, wir sehen, wie das ist. Und wir haben vier Monate zu checken. Das ist nicht einfach, sondern es war verset. Weil einer der Menschen, der die M-Prozessin ist, oder der M-Prozessin, war, wir konnten die Tatsache handhaben. Wir haben eine sehr gute Situation, dass es jetzt, wenn Colin passt aus, es war ein leichtes Hand-over, wenn Steve passt aus, dann sieht er nicht mehr. Es war auch gut und ein schönes Hand-over. Also, ja, wir haben eine Parte, wo es gut geht. Wir haben eine andere Parte, wo es nicht geht. Wir sollten mehr Parten machen. Es könnte aber auch eine andere Parte sein. So, okay. Was Sie sagen, ist schön, aber es funktioniert nicht für alle Teams. Ich glaube, für Steve, es funktioniert gut, aber es ist ein sehr guter Job. Es ist eine sehr gute Aufgabe, und die Leute sind interessiert und wollen, wie Sie sind, wie Sie sind. Ich habe das auch versucht, für Alias, und es war wirklich nicht das same. Wir haben den Stepp-N-Grund, aber es gibt nicht 5 Leute, die sich aussehen. Ich bin sehr glücklich, dass es ein Kappa-Kapell in der Arbeit geht und ich bin sehr sicher. Aber es funktioniert nicht immer so. Das ist ein Teil der Zeit. Ich wollte mich zu David fragen. Sie haben gesagt, wir haben keine Guidelines für eine Team zu fahren. Ich würde Sie sehr akzeptieren. Das ist warum ich vorhin starte diese Wiki-Pages, Wiki.debend.box. Ich habe vorhin eine Guidelines-Page, in der wir meine Experien, Biodesadministraten, und wie wir diese Team fahren. Ich mag, dass andere Leute, die diese Page haben, dass wir sie nutzen, damit wir vorhin die Team arbeiten können. Und dann, wir müssen akzeptieren, dass wir ein Team haben, dass wir nicht immer mehr, sondern dass wir in 2-3 Jahren sind, aber nachdem wir geblockt sind. Das ist ein guter Weg, um die Situation zu unlocken. Und ich glaube, dass etwas, was die Idee von AG betrifft, ist potenziell interessant. Vielleicht können wir einen solchen Prozessor sagen, okay, ich glaube, diese Team ist nicht mehr weg, wir müssen neue Leute geben und wir sollten ein Prozess haben, in dem wir die Leute kandidaten. Wir wollen, was sie tun, mit dieser Team. Und dann haben wir die puren Mitglieder der Team, die sagen, was sie sehen, was sie kandidaten. Und dann, um die Entwicklung, um die Situation zu unlocken und immer etwas klarer zu machen. Ich weiß nicht, was ich denke, aber ich glaube, das ist ein guter Weg. Also, das ist nicht wirklich relevant für die meisten, was hier gesagt wurde, aber ich habe nur den Schädelungssystem zu machen, für die Social-Committee oder die Social-Dispute-Resolution, das ist etwas, was wir hier discussen, und ein separativer Punkt. Ist es auf dem Schädel? Ja, und das ist das letzte Mal. Und dann, was wir hier machen, ist, dass es noch ein weiterer Punkt gibt. Wir haben noch ein weiterer Punkt. Wir haben noch ein weiterer Punkt. Dann ist das Schädelungs-Wepperswong. Oh, okay. Superkelle 2 Hype-Probius, die sind hinter uns. Also, ich habe das Wort gesagt, ich erinnere mich, dass die Verleihung ziemlich ungewöhnlich ist, aber es ist wertvoll, dass das zweite Mal, die Verleihung der Verleihung über eine wesentliche Art, wo Anthony das gleiche Ding gemacht hat, wenn Steven und ich zusammengekommen sind. Und, seit wir da ein Model haben, etwas, das auf einem some-Level sehr gut funktioniert, seit der FTP-Master-Team in den letzten Jahren, war etwas, etwas, was wir auf einem some-Level machen sollten für die FTP-Master-Team ist, hier sind einige Experimente, wo es gemacht wurde, statt von der Tempte, zu sagen, dass es so geht, aber wir sollten das auch funktioniert. Ja, das ist wirklich ein Problem, dass wir wirklich haben, dass wir hier in Trump die meisten Agrieren haben, damit wir wirklich haben, seine Clothing-Wert zu sein, die wir haben, um zu arbeiten, um zu sagen, ob es für dich so etwas klingt, oder ob wir noch ein paar Diskussionen haben. Wir können uns auch noch ein bisschen mehr über die Diskussion haben. Ja, das ist ein Informatum, das ist natürlich ein Ausdruck, das wir hier haben, dass wir hier haben, dass wir hier haben, Erstens, du hast wahrscheinlich bemerkt, dass ich nicht ein DPI-Bund, ein Team, ein 7-in-Champ oder so habe. Das ist meistens, weil ich nicht das Gefühl habe, dass ich eine gewisse Leadership habe, in der ich meine Dinge behandeln kann. Aber natürlich, wenn du Dinge hast, was du gerne machen möchtest, ich meine, du bist 5 Leute und du möchtest das Sozial-Komitee sein oder so, weil niemand den Job zu tun hat. Dann kommst du zu mir und ich werde dir das Sozial-Komitee machen. Das ist wahrscheinlich nicht so einfach, aber das ist die Idee. Die zweite Sache ist, dass du nicht über FACE-to-FACE-Meetings gesprochen hast. Es ist auch so, wie FACE-to-FACE-Meetings helfen können, so Dinge zu lösen, wie die Englisch-Barriere, wie die Verbrecherung, und das Konflikt ist wirklich toll in der Batterie. Aber wir sollten nicht für jeden, der da ist, immer wieder FACE-to-FACE-Meetings zu haben. Insofern, es gibt ein paar Meetingsplans. Die Verbrecherin hat bereits eine Meeting. Wenn du eine Meeting mit deinem Team möchtest, oder um eine spezielle Sache zu sprechen, dass du nicht Zeit hast, um eine Technik zu sprechen, dann gehst du einfach zu der Leader-Adress. Du möchtest Geld für Drain oder Plane oder so, aber du möchtest nicht eine Meeting-Area in Hawaii oder anywhere. Aber wir haben 1.000 Dollar, die ich benutzen möchte, um Sponsor-Meetings zu nutzen. Du möchtest wahrscheinlich Geld für die Sponsor-Meetingssponsor-Meetings, und vielleicht posten, wenn du dich nicht für das Sponsor finden kannst. Ich weiß, ein paar Leute sind nicht sehr bekannt, wie es funktioniert. Es sind Leute, die mir gewohnt sind, und die haben viel Geld für die Sponsor-Meetingssponsor-Meetings zu tun, weil sie nicht wissen, wie es funktioniert. Aber einfach sagen, du möchtest in diesem Ort gehen und sagen, warum es für Drain gut ist. Und mit den Leuten, die zusammenarbeiten wollen, ist es immer gut für Drain. Und ich sage, okay. Okay, ich denke, wir sind jetzt mit einer offiziellen Diskussion. Ich denke, was wir jetzt tun, ist es Zeit, einen Platz für den Social-Community-Bog, ich glaube, wenn wir wollen, ist es gebraucht. Also, der dritte Platz wäre unser letzten Tag, das vielleicht ein bisschen zu spät. Also, ich würde versuchen, einen Laptop vorzunehmen. Ist das gut? Okay, dann machen wir das. Ich kann noch was organisieren. Ich weiß, wie es funktioniert. So, eigentlich hast du den Daumen und kommen von daumen, so dass nobody misssit. Das ist einfach zu sagen, wie konnte ich nur Sys-Parts her. In Assert-Parts-Unformel setzt so etwas bei mir hier. So, senke mir mal, schau und kaff dir.