On my platform

I originally was quite reluctant to post on Planet Debian about the DPL race, but hey, this is the campaigning period, anyway.

My choice not to go into too much detail about what I'll do about Debian seems to spark some confusion. I initially thought of adding a rather verbose explanation for that to my platform; but as the initial version of my platform got quite long and convoluted, it got cut. Perhaps that wasn't a very good idea, so here goes:

One observation I've made over the years is that DPL candidates often come up with all sorts of grandiose plans about what should be done to improve Debian. These plans are usually the result of some observation they've made, and consequently some thinking they've put in so as to come up with what they think is the most reasonable solution to the problem at hand.

The only problem with this approach is that, if you're not involved in whatever you have ideas on, you'll probably end up suggesting things which the people that are involved do not think is a good idea to do. Which would consequently mean that you'll either have to do it all by yourself (since you can't force DDs to do something against their will, and we have a constitution to back that up), or that they convince you that it's not a good idea, and you end up not doing whatever you promised to do during your campaign anyway.

First, this is silly. If you don't know whether you can or will keep a promise, you should not make it. But apart from that, it's also a problem; if you get elected mainly because you promise to do one thing and then don't end up doing it, or do something else instead, then you've got yourself a very good reason not to be liked in the community. Which isn't something a DPL should aim for, I believe.

So rather than coming up with a detailed plan of all the things I'd do once elected, I decided to come up with a detailed plan of all the things that need work. The exact stuff that gets done about them would then be decided after having a chat (on IRC or otherwise) with the people involved, directly or otherwise, and after considering what other people's opinion on the matter is, if I know said opinion.

Does that give me a carte blanche, as Julien suggests? Well, yes and no. Yes, because every Debian Developer who runs for DPL is essentially asking for a carte blanche; after all, the DPL has the ability to speak for the developer body, unless overruled by GR. No, because I don't think doing whatever I want and everyone else be damned is an even remote sign of maturity, and because I promised not to seek the controversy in making decisions (while not avoiding it at all cost either).