Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:55 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 6:41:42 PM EDT Brian Gupta wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Neil McGovern wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:57:55AM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > > * Louis-Philippe Véronneau [2020-03-18 12:52]: > > > > > Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba determination" is? I > > > > > couldn't find anything online about this... > > > > > > > > There was a time when the IRS didn't approve any new 501(c)(3) > > > > applications for open source related organizations and basically put > > > > them on ice. > > > > > > > > I thought this got resolved though in the meantime (years ago). > > > > > > > > https://blogs.gnome.org/jnelson/2014/06/30/the-new-501c3-and-the-future-> > > > > > > of-free-software-in-the-united-states/ > > > > https://opensource.org/node/840 > > > > > > The two links from Martin are probably the best background reading. the > > > tldr versions is: making FOSS is not enough to gain 501c3 status by > > > itself. > > > > Applications for non-profit status need to be done carefully as they are > > scrutinized in most jurisdictions. Looking at the BOLO, it seems the IRS is > > particularly on the lookout for commercially developed Open Source Software. > > > >"The members of the organizations are usually the for-profit business or > > for-profit support technicians of the software." > > > > I think Debian has a very good case here, and at least to my eyes doesn't > > fit that description. I think it's worth the effort to try. As they say > > "nothing ventured, nothing gained." > > > > Cheers, > > Brian > > Well, I think there's a down side risk here too. If Debian were to apply to > create it's own foundation in the US (certainly in the US, possibly anywhere), > that would be a very clear signal to SPI that we were planning to replace > them. So we file for the new non-profit and spend possibly years without an > alternative to SPI while we've already told them they are going to be > replaced. > > That probably isn't motivating for a high level of service. Then if we get > turned down, we get to go back to them and say "That thing where we were going > to fire you? Can we pretend that never happened?". Not a great position to > be > in. Many Debian Project Members, myself included, are contributing members of SPI, and I for one, certainly plan to remain one, regardless of any plans to establish Debian Foundations. I also consider the Debian Project Members on SPI's board kindred spirits and even friends who have similar interests. I very much hope for their continued success. Remember that over half of the SPI board are also Debian Project Members, and are sure to understand our needs. We are NOT abandoning the relationship, and we will certainly continue working with SPI whether or not we decide to pursue our own Foundations. At the end of the day, SPI is a professionally run organization, that would not punish one of their member projects for seeking the tailored services and organizational structure it needs. Thanks, Brian > I'd suggest we need to be far more certain that such a change is both needed > and likely to be successful. "Meh, let's give it a shot" isn't really a great > plan. > > Scott K signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 6:41:42 PM EDT Brian Gupta wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:57:55AM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > * Louis-Philippe Véronneau [2020-03-18 12:52]: > > > > Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba determination" is? I > > > > couldn't find anything online about this... > > > > > > There was a time when the IRS didn't approve any new 501(c)(3) > > > applications for open source related organizations and basically put > > > them on ice. > > > > > > I thought this got resolved though in the meantime (years ago). > > > > > > https://blogs.gnome.org/jnelson/2014/06/30/the-new-501c3-and-the-future-> > > > > > of-free-software-in-the-united-states/ https://opensource.org/node/840 > > > > The two links from Martin are probably the best background reading. the > > tldr versions is: making FOSS is not enough to gain 501c3 status by > > itself. > > Applications for non-profit status need to be done carefully as they are > scrutinized in most jurisdictions. Looking at the BOLO, it seems the IRS is > particularly on the lookout for commercially developed Open Source Software. > >"The members of the organizations are usually the for-profit business or > for-profit support technicians of the software." > > I think Debian has a very good case here, and at least to my eyes doesn't > fit that description. I think it's worth the effort to try. As they say > "nothing ventured, nothing gained." > > Cheers, > Brian Well, I think there's a down side risk here too. If Debian were to apply to create it's own foundation in the US (certainly in the US, possibly anywhere), that would be a very clear signal to SPI that we were planning to replace them. So we file for the new non-profit and spend possibly years without an alternative to SPI while we've already told them they are going to be replaced. That probably isn't motivating for a high level of service. Then if we get turned down, we get to go back to them and say "That thing where we were going to fire you? Can we pretend that never happened?". Not a great position to be in. I'd suggest we need to be far more certain that such a change is both needed and likely to be successful. "Meh, let's give it a shot" isn't really a great plan. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Question for all candidates: Sam's non-platform: Delegates
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:35 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > > Hello, > > In his non-platform, Sam wrote > > If I were running as DPL, figuring out how to do a better job of > managing delegations, respecting both the current delegates and the > needs of the project, would be my priority for the next year. I > hope that the candidates who step forward take on this challenge. > > Do you agree? If so, how do you propose to take on the challenge? If I am elected DPL, one of the first things I will do, is a check-in with all delegated teams, and ask them what support and time they might need from me over the coming year, and ask them for a sense of how they feel things are going. I would make plans accordingly. Of course, if it was brought to my attention that someone was unhappy with a team's service, I'd remind them that we are all volunteers, but I'd look into the expressed concerns and discuss them with the team in question. I would see if the team understands where the concerns are coming from and if they feel there is anything we could do to help the situation. Cheers, Brian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:57:55AM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Louis-Philippe Véronneau [2020-03-18 12:52]: > > > Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba determination" is? I > > > couldn't find anything online about this... > > > > There was a time when the IRS didn't approve any new 501(c)(3) > > applications for open source related organizations and basically put > > them on ice. > > > > I thought this got resolved though in the meantime (years ago). > > > > https://blogs.gnome.org/jnelson/2014/06/30/the-new-501c3-and-the-future-of-free-software-in-the-united-states/ > > https://opensource.org/node/840 > > > > The two links from Martin are probably the best background reading. the > tldr versions is: making FOSS is not enough to gain 501c3 status by > itself. Applications for non-profit status need to be done carefully as they are scrutinized in most jurisdictions. Looking at the BOLO, it seems the IRS is particularly on the lookout for commercially developed Open Source Software. "The members of the organizations are usually the for-profit business or for-profit support technicians of the software." I think Debian has a very good case here, and at least to my eyes doesn't fit that description. I think it's worth the effort to try. As they say "nothing ventured, nothing gained." Cheers, Brian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:01 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Hello dear DPL candidates, > > I would like all the candidates to reply to this question on discourse: > https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-on-discourse/75 > > Please create an account and answer there. At least it would give you a > feeling of how it looks like to use it. > > The kind of discussions that we have in debian-vote is very much suited > for something like discourse where we can +1 with like, etc. > > I would encourage others DD asking questions to try to use discourse and > just use the mail to inform of the discussion started on discourse. I registered. Thank you for setting that up. I agree with Jonathan that since debian-vote is the official forum for election-related discussion, we should keep the discussion here. Some people will like discourse and some people don't, but I would welcome experimentation, including a fully backed-up highly-available Debian instance for those who wish to use it. Looking to the future, I would say we should only make it the default if there is consensus to do so. At this time, I don't believe there is a consensus to do so. I think perhaps one approach towards building consensus, might be to look at new lists going forward first. IE: Make it an option for those who might otherwise request a list. Cheers, Brian > Cheers, > -- > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ > ⠈⠳⣄ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > (since it's a test site I guess that might be invalid one day) It is very, very likely to be invalid in the coming weeks/months. I shall endeavour to copy any replies to the topic over to this list for posterity. Neil signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:57:55AM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Louis-Philippe Véronneau [2020-03-18 12:52]: > > Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba determination" is? I > > couldn't find anything online about this... > > There was a time when the IRS didn't approve any new 501(c)(3) > applications for open source related organizations and basically put > them on ice. > > I thought this got resolved though in the meantime (years ago). > > https://blogs.gnome.org/jnelson/2014/06/30/the-new-501c3-and-the-future-of-free-software-in-the-united-states/ > https://opensource.org/node/840 > The two links from Martin are probably the best background reading. the tldr versions is: making FOSS is not enough to gain 501c3 status by itself. Neil -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question for all candidates: Sam's non-platform: Delegates
On 2020/03/18 19:33, Sean Whitton wrote: > In his non-platform, Sam wrote > > If I were running as DPL, figuring out how to do a better job of > managing delegations, respecting both the current delegates and the > needs of the project, would be my priority for the next year. I > hope that the candidates who step forward take on this challenge. > > Do you agree? If so, how do you propose to take on the challenge? Yes, I agree with Sam that the next DPL should do a better job of dealing with delegations. That means being available and reserving some bandwidth for delegations even when other exciting things are happening. Also actively checking in on delegations that are known to need some support, like the DebConf team in the period before Debconf starts and probably also scheduled check-ins with delegations like the treasurers. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?
Hi Sean On 2020/03/18 19:34, Sean Whitton wrote: > I don't mind clicking on a link to read the answers too much, but I > think your answers should be preserved in our mailing list archives. Here is the permalink from my answer: https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-on-discourse/75/4?u=highvoltage (since it's a test site I guess that might be invalid one day) Here's the full text: """ Like many DD’s, I have mixed feelings about Discourse. I’ve used it before in my local Wireless User Group. I don’t use it much personally, but it works really well for that community. This current (discourse.debian.net) site is obviously not the best example of an active Discourse site, so if someone is interested in what an instance that’s been used for a while looks like, here is CTWUG’s instance: https://forum.ctwug.za.net/ 2 Ubuntu replaced their Community Hub site with a Discourse instance. You can read more about that at https://popey.com/blog/posts/ubuntu-community-hub-proposal.html and https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-community-hub-launched/102. Forums and sites like Discourse are often used for support. I kind of like that they explicitly don’t want to use their site for support, which I think can become a distraction from wider community issues. Their instance is at https://discourse.ubuntu.com/ I agree that the features you mention in the debian-vote thread are great. Being able to upvote comments in a Debian discussion could be very useful. Personally, when it comes to web-based forums, I tend to use them for a while and then only remember I have an account on them a few years later. They tend to be obnoxious with email notifications, so I usually disable those. For some, just using the e-mail gateway may be sufficient, another DD did some tests on the usability of its email integration and wrote a report: https://writefreely.debian.social/paddatrapper/discourse IMHO only using the e-mail interface would kind of defeat the purpose (you might as well use a mailing list then) since all the nice features that’s available are exposed in the web interface. I might have to through your question back at you and ask you, what would you want a Discourse site for Debian to be used? I’m even going to go ahead and give a partial answer, because I’m a DD so of course I have an opinion about everything. I think for things like DebConf, Discourse might be a better way to co-ordinate a lot of things. Especially since we tend to get in a small influx of new users that, for example, struggle to get an account on the Debian wiki and once they do, figure out how to use it, how to deal with edit conflicts, etc. Our wiki is also full of stale documentation. And we don’t really use talk pages on there so leaving comments or having discussion about it on there is suboptimal. Perhaps a Discourse instance might be a better alternative for wiki-like documentation, I’m not sure. We can perhaps check how it works out for Ubuntu. My point with the above is, I think you need to find something that it’s really useful for, and that it’s really good at, and drive that use case to spark interest in it. (Also, why doesn’t it have backups yet?) Finally, I don’t think you should encourage Debianites to ask questions for the DPL elections on here. Both questions and answers could go unnoticed and unread. I think it’s better to choose a future discussion and plan it ahead, rather than test it in production mid-way of a DPL election. """ -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to Jonathan: how do you intend to prioritise?
Hello Jonathan, On Tue 17 Mar 2020 at 12:21PM +02, Jonathan Carter wrote: > Great question, thanks! I'll try to explain it without throughing more > bullet points at you while at the same time navigating all the clichés > that exist for so many good reasons. Thanks, this e-mail helps a lot. > By the end of the term, I would like to have a shared sense of 'business > as usual' within the project. I'd like our contributors and project > members to have a sense of belonging, and that they can focus on their > work and improve Debian's technical excellence without having to spend > too much time on unproductive drama. I know that sounds incredibly > broad, and at the same time somewhat vague, but I believe it's what the > project needs right now. I agree that this would be beneficial for us. Perhaps the thing to do would be for the DPL to seek out and amplify small efforts people are making in this direction. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Question for all candidates: Sam's non-platform: Delegates
Hello, In his non-platform, Sam wrote If I were running as DPL, figuring out how to do a better job of managing delegations, respecting both the current delegates and the needs of the project, would be my priority for the next year. I hope that the candidates who step forward take on this challenge. Do you agree? If so, how do you propose to take on the challenge? Thanks. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?
Hello, On Wed 18 Mar 2020 at 11:00AM +01, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello dear DPL candidates, > > I would like all the candidates to reply to this question on discourse: > https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-on-discourse/75 > > Please create an account and answer there. At least it would give you a > feeling of how it looks like to use it. Candidates, could you please copy your answers into replies to this mail please? I don't mind clicking on a link to read the answers too much, but I think your answers should be preserved in our mailing list archives. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
* Louis-Philippe Véronneau [2020-03-18 12:52]: > Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba determination" is? I > couldn't find anything online about this... There was a time when the IRS didn't approve any new 501(c)(3) applications for open source related organizations and basically put them on ice. I thought this got resolved though in the meantime (years ago). https://blogs.gnome.org/jnelson/2014/06/30/the-new-501c3-and-the-future-of-free-software-in-the-united-states/ https://opensource.org/node/840 -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
On 20-03-18 04 h 36, Neil McGovern wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:53:10AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: >>> I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian >>> Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks. >> >> You are correct. It's going to take 6-12 months of work to create the >> foundation, >> and that includes drafting by-laws. >> > > Just to confirm here, are you proposing the creation of a new 501(c)(3) > public charity? > > If so, how have you considered the impact of the Yorba determination > (which took 4 years) on the ability of Debian to create a new 501(c)(3)? Hi Neil! Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba determination" is? I couldn't find anything online about this... Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
On 20-03-18 00 h 53, Brian Gupta wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Louis-Philippe Véronneau > wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> The idea of having a Debian Foundation sounds interesting, although I do >> share some of tbm's fears. >> >> From what I understand, you want this DPL election to be a referendum on >> the idea of a Debian Foundation. >> >> It would be really hard for me to vote for you without having a clearer >> idea of what that would entail for Debian, especially in terms of costs. >> It feels a bit like signing a blank check and hoping things go well. > > The DPL is bound to operate under the constitution, and would still need to > follow 5.1.19, so you wouldn't be signing a "blank check". > >"In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting property > held in >trust for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.). Such decisions are > communicated >to the members by the Project Leader or their Delegate(s). Major > expenditures >should be proposed and debated on the mailing list before funds are > disbursed." > >> I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian >> Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks. > > You are correct. It's going to take 6-12 months of work to create the > foundation, > and that includes drafting by-laws. > >> In another email you write: >> >>> 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require >>> any changes to the constitution >> >> I'd be much more inclined to vote for you if you promised you would in >> fact propose a GR on this once elected. >> >> It would give you (and others who want to help) time to come up with a >> solid plan and let the Debian community be the final judge. > > I'd like to understand this request more. We have three trusted organizations > (two > of which have Debian in their names), and we didn't have a GR to form them or > make > them TOs. AFAIU, the only TO who has major expenditures due to salaries is SPI, and that's a fairly recent development. I feel creating a Debian Foundation is not the same as creating another TO, as it's something we've never done before and comes with more risks. > The GR to do what I am proposing already passed in 2006. [1] If it turns out > that > additional constitutional changes are required, of course, I'd seek out a GR. I don't disagree with the fact the DPL surely has the power to create a Debian Foundation without going through a GR. The collective decision making processes Debian has are important to me and I simply don't see why we shouldn't use them to make this important decision together. > Would you be happy with the following commitments instead of a commitment to > propose > a GR? > > 1) Share any proposed drafts for the organization's by-laws w/ debian-project > for >feedback, and consensus-building? > 2) Consult with Project Members on a budget for hiring the administrative > staff (As >would be expected by the constitution) I feel that's a good start and should indeed be the way to go to make sure we have a healthy debate on these issues. Yet, I don't see why, after doing all this and getting a rough consensus, we shouldn't still hold a GR. > I was trying to put my finger on what it is I don't love about GRs, and I > think it's > the conflict between having a time-limited conversation and giving everyone a > chance > to have their say. This can end up with everyone rushing to say what they > want to > say, in a stressful compressed marathon sprint of discussion. I much prefer > open-ended discussions that either end in consensus or with an agreement that > consensus is unlikely to be reached. Of course some things require a GR, but > I'd > hope that consensus was largely already built prior to starting the GR > process. I haven't been a DD for very long, so maybe I haven't had time to internalise this bias against GRs others seem to have. You talk about a time restrictive process, but I don't see how that applies if the GR is the last step of a collective decision making process. We don't have to rush things and can discuss this issue at length. Once opinions are formed and everyone is ready, I feel making sure the whole project is OK through a GR makes a lot of sense. One thing is certain: if we keep using GRs as ways to put out flamewars or to end very heated debates, we'll keep seeing them as terrible things we should avoid as much as possible. This does not have to be the case. GRs can surely be amazing democratic tools for collective decision making. Having a "positive" GR once in a while (like for the creation of a Debian Foundation) would certainly help :) Cheers, and thanks for your reflections, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 9:28:21 AM EDT Jonathan Carter wrote: > Hi Raphaël > > On 2020/03/18 12:00, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > I would like all the candidates to reply to this question on discourse: > > https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-> > > > on-discourse/75 > Done. > > > The kind of discussions that we have in debian-vote is very much suited > > for something like discourse where we can +1 with like, etc. > > > > I would encourage others DD asking questions to try to use discourse and > > just use the mail to inform of the discussion started on discourse. > > As I said on the post, I think it's better to keep questions to the DPL > candidates on this list, rather than test Discourse for DPL Q midway > through a DPL election. > > And I also forgot to mention, nice initiative I do think that it has > potential. Thanks for keeping the focus here. I've used discourse to attempt communication with Python upstream, which uses it. It worked OK for a specific topic that I joined to focus on and discuss, but as a general discussion medium, like every single web thing I've tried, I think it's hopeless. This is a free project, so people can talk wherever they want, but people are going to be left behind. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hi all, On 18.03.20 13:36, Pranav Jain wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 5:58 PM Sruthi Chandran wrote: >> On 18/03/20 4:06 pm, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: >>> The fact that we don't know this might hint at the need of having a >>> feedback process for Outreach in Debian. >>> >>> This process could cover: >>> >>> - Did their mentor introduce them to Debian processes, mailinglists, >>> other Debian Developers, teams, tools? >>> - Do they feel they are now independent with regards to Debian work? >>> - Do they want to continue contributing to Debian? If no, what would >>> they need, what are they missing? >>> - What can the Debian Outreach do better in the next rounds? >>> >>> and much more.. Happy to help working out such a process with the >>> current Outreach coordinators in Debian. >>> >>> Having such a feedback process could ensure that the money Debian spends >>> on Outreachy is well used. >> This is a great idea and it is time we go ahead with this. I would be >> definitely more than happy to work with you on this idea, irrespective >> of whether I become DPL or not. > We at Outreach team are also looking at ways to improve the feedback > mechanism. It would be nice to collaborate and work on it. Cool, let me know in private if/how to get involved - with no urgency whatsoever. :) Ulrike
Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?
Hi Raphaël On 2020/03/18 12:00, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I would like all the candidates to reply to this question on discourse: > https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-on-discourse/75 Done. > The kind of discussions that we have in debian-vote is very much suited > for something like discourse where we can +1 with like, etc. > > I would encourage others DD asking questions to try to use discourse and > just use the mail to inform of the discussion started on discourse. As I said on the post, I think it's better to keep questions to the DPL candidates on this list, rather than test Discourse for DPL Q midway through a DPL election. And I also forgot to mention, nice initiative I do think that it has potential. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hi, On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:01:28PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Honestly, I don't think it's a problem we can solve right now, but at > > the very least, we should do whatever it takes to not be part of the > > problem, and we should take every small step we can take to be the good > > guys and help shift things toward equality. > Debian's main goal is to provide a Linux distribution. Not to make politics. Providing a Linux distribution is a political act in itself. We are giving access to information technology to people who would not have that access otherwise. It is hard to separate the political act of providing a free operating system to people who could buy a commercial one from the political act of providing a free operating system to people who couldn't. Paid programs like Outreachy further extend the circle of people who we provide a Linux distribution to, and in doing so, also extends the circle of potential contributors. One of the things I still remember from DebConf 4 in Porto Alegre was when a man was talking to us at a bus stop because we had backpacks with Debian logos on them, and he told us how his daughter was now learning to use Linux at the local telecentro, and he was hoping she'd get a good job later. What we do has an impact wide outside our current community, and there is also significant potential for future contributors outside our current community -- but for some of these, some hurdles have to be cleared away. The Debian project doing so is no more political than existing in the first place. Simon
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 18/03/20 4:06 pm, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > Hi! > > @JonathanCarter: thank you very much for encouraging us to continue this > discussion here :) > ... > Agreed. > > @Adrian: I think you should read up on the Flosspols study [1] and > especially about the time women and men can put into free software, and > the age at which they get involved. Good reference. > ... > The fact that we don't know this might hint at the need of having a > feedback process for Outreach in Debian. > > This process could cover: > > - Did their mentor introduce them to Debian processes, mailinglists, > other Debian Developers, teams, tools? > - Do they feel they are now independent with regards to Debian work? > - Do they want to continue contributing to Debian? If no, what would > they need, what are they missing? > - What can the Debian Outreach do better in the next rounds? > > and much more.. Happy to help working out such a process with the > current Outreach coordinators in Debian. > > Having such a feedback process could ensure that the money Debian spends > on Outreachy is well used. This is a great idea and it is time we go ahead with this. I would be definitely more than happy to work with you on this idea, irrespective of whether I become DPL or not. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 18/03/20 3:05 pm, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [2020-03-18 10:26]: >>> As a former Outreachy intern myself (2015) I can tell you that it the >>> stipend has helped me to invest time to find my way around Debian, time >>> during which otherwise I would have had to earn a living elsewhere and >>> would never have gotten involved further with Debian. >> With all due respect, but I find this a bit pretentious. The vast >> majority of people who are getting involved with open source are >> initially not being paid for that. > That reminds me of a remark I made recently when talking about > Outreachy in the context of Debian. First, I should say that I agree > with Ulrike that some people won't be able to spend time learning > about FOSS if they are not paid through a stipend. Just think of > people in Asia or Africa who don't have the luxury of "spare time" we > in the west often have. In India, non-male free software contributors are kind of very low. Wherever you are, the gender ratio is horribly screwed in Free Software, I do not think it is has to do anything with having luxury of "spare time" or not. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 17/03/20 10:02 pm, Hector Oron wrote: > Hello, > > First of all, thanks for nominating yourselves to Debian project leaders. > > Debian Outreach looks like an awesome initiative to bring new blood > into Debian and also people coming from minority groups, however, on > the other hand, it has been a quite expensive to run for the real > benefit provided to Debian project. Reading the delegation text: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00011.html. > I find 2 out of 3 team coordinators are not Debian > contributors/developers, and the other seems to be inactive. > > Q: How do you feel on having non-Debian contributors/developers > being DPL delegates? I am not very comfortable with the non-Debian members as DPL delegates and also representing Debian to the outside world. The efforts of everyone who contributes to Debian is valuable, but I think when it comes to the Outreach team, they are in fact representing official Debian project. In such a scenario I would definitely prefer Debian members. As a project we should be able to address this. Either we would have to find Debian members to be the coordinators or existing coordinators could explore the possibility of becoming Debian members. To be honest, if I become DPL, I would not be comfortable delegating to people who are not Debian members. > Q: Do you see any flaws on the current Outreach setup? If so, how > would you address them? Yes, I would not say the current Outreach setup is without flaws. I am aware that we do get some regular contributors through Outreachy, but we need to revisit and check what is the expense to return ratio. We need to have a better feedback loop as to if we are not able to retain contributors after the Outreachy period, where we are going wrong and what we can do to improve this. As mentioned in my platform, I am running for DPL primarily with "Diversity" in focus. So if I become DPL, I would definitely take it on personally to analyze Outreachy/diversity budget and efficiency. Even when I advocate for diversity, doing things and spending money in the name of diversity with no returns is not something I support. Right now I do not have a perfect picture about the current scenario, but this would be one of the priorities as DPL. > My best regards, signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 2020/03/18 13:16, Héctor Orón Martínez wrote: > That's one option, yes. > I would like people being in such case to at least be tested that > they know about DFSG and Debian core values. +1, as a DPL I would not add someone to a delegation unless I'm satisfied that they are at least familiar with those. It doesn't seem reasonable for someone to represent Debian in an official capacity if they don't even know what Debian is. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
@JPA, On 18.03.20 12:01, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 3/18/20 10:58 AM, Jonathan Carter wrote: > Why is it fair to support a woman in a rich first-world country but not > the poor boy in the streets of Delhi? Quoting Outreachy: "We expressly invite women (both cis and trans), trans men, and genderqueer people to apply. We also expressly invite applications from residents and nationals of the United States of any gender who are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. Anyone who faces under-representation, systemic bias, or discrimination in the technology industry of their country is invited to apply." To take your example, we can extrapolate the last sentence of this quote to imply that people from untouchable castes are explicitly invited to apply. Ulrike
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 2020/03/18 13:01, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> You hit a very important aspect of privilege in your mail here that I'm >> not sure you're fully conscious of. Back in 1989, me and my little >> buddies were typing BASIC in to a ZX-Spectrum so that we can play new >> games. It was great and we learned a lot considering we were just 6 and >> 7 year olds. >> >> At the same time, the girls in our street were playing with dolls >> because you know, boys are supposed to play with Lego and computers and >> girls are supposed to play with dolls and pink tea sets. At least, >> that's the rules society systemically imposed on the world. Back then if >> there were a microcomputer in the house, girls typically got very little >> time on it. > > I was playing with dolls when I was a small kid, that didn't keep me from > becoming interested in computers. Several female physicists I know probably > played with dolls as well, yet they are what they are now. I'm sure that you're smart enough to know that you're completely missing the point there. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hello, Thanks all for the replies! It makes an interesting discussion, however, I would like to remember those were questions to the upcoming DPL, so we can have more informed decision when voting. Missatge de Ulrike Uhlig del dia dc., 18 de març 2020 a les 11:37: > Last but not least, I'd like to reply to @Hector: > > I've been re-thinking about your observation "I find 2 out of 3 team > coordinators are not Debian contributors/developers". They've been doing > this work for several years to my knowledge, so how come we do not > consider them to be Debian contributors? Just because they lack an > official title? An empathic way to deal with this could be to thank them > for their work, and to encourage them to enter the NM process, to become > DDs, uploading or non-uploading, and to continue enriching our community. That's one option, yes. I would like people being in such case to at least be tested that they know about DFSG and Debian core values. Regards -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 3/18/20 10:58 AM, Jonathan Carter wrote: > You hit a very important aspect of privilege in your mail here that I'm > not sure you're fully conscious of. Back in 1989, me and my little > buddies were typing BASIC in to a ZX-Spectrum so that we can play new > games. It was great and we learned a lot considering we were just 6 and > 7 year olds. > > At the same time, the girls in our street were playing with dolls > because you know, boys are supposed to play with Lego and computers and > girls are supposed to play with dolls and pink tea sets. At least, > that's the rules society systemically imposed on the world. Back then if > there were a microcomputer in the house, girls typically got very little > time on it. I was playing with dolls when I was a small kid, that didn't keep me from becoming interested in computers. Several female physicists I know probably played with dolls as well, yet they are what they are now. > It's easy to assume that "because I did it, anyone can", but the fact is > that if you compare boys and girls and computers, especially at our age, > the gender gap becomes massive because of all the problems that have > been imposed on us by the world out there. No one is imposing anything. This is a claim that lots of people come up with when they don't have anything to back their claims. Seeing a certain distribution of age, gender and other social features does not mean you already have an explanation for that distribution. On the contrary, the fact that the gender equality paradox exists proves that this assumption is wrong. > And since it's not Debian's fault that the world is like this I suppose > it's fair of people to ask "But why is this Debian's responsibility to > solve!? Why should we commit any resources to solving this problem!?". > Honestly, I don't think it's a problem we can solve right now, but at > the very least, we should do whatever it takes to not be part of the > problem, and we should take every small step we can take to be the good > guys and help shift things toward equality. Debian's main goal is to provide a Linux distribution. Not to make politics. > Sure, this means that we might invest a lot of time, effort and money in > to some individuals that end up elsewhere. Maybe a woman who started out > with us ends up going to work for Red Hat. Maybe she comes back to > Debian and contributes skills she learned there back here. Maybe women > that got started with OpenSUSE outreachy initiatives end up here. I > think that's all ok, if all organisations keep contributing, then all of > them will eventually get some ROI out of it in terms of investing in people. Why is it fair to support a woman in a rich first-world country but not the poor boy in the streets of Delhi? >> I don't think the majority of people in the FOSS community can claims that >> they received a sponsorship early on to be able to join the community. On >> the contrary, most people will have probably spent a fair amount of money >> and their own leisure time to get things done, Linus Torvalds being one >> of the most prominent ones who didn't even have the money to pay for his >> first i386 machine in full but rather had to finance it through a loan. > > Linus is an exceptional person and most people who had more than him > ended up being very mediocre. But even he had a lot going for him. He > went to a fancy university in Europe where he got to learn Unix/Minix > and he had his own 386. I think you're setting an unrealistically high > expectation if you want people who have less than that to have to aim as > high as being like Linus. I don't think that Finland has any gender restrictions for their universities, do they? But I assume that this is going to derail again, so I'm staying away from this discussion. I merely want to say that I disagree with these statements and I'm sure I'm not the only one within Debian. Thanks, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hi! @JonathanCarter: thank you very much for encouraging us to continue this discussion here :) On 18.03.20 10:35, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [2020-03-18 10:26]: >>> As a former Outreachy intern myself (2015) I can tell you that it the >>> stipend has helped me to invest time to find my way around Debian, time >>> during which otherwise I would have had to earn a living elsewhere and >>> would never have gotten involved further with Debian. > >> With all due respect, but I find this a bit pretentious. The vast >> majority of people who are getting involved with open source are >> initially not being paid for that. > That reminds me of a remark I made recently when talking about > Outreachy in the context of Debian. First, I should say that I agree > with Ulrike that some people won't be able to spend time learning > about FOSS if they are not paid through a stipend. Just think of > people in Asia or Africa who don't have the luxury of "spare time" we > in the west often have. Agreed. @Adrian: I think you should read up on the Flosspols study [1] and especially about the time women and men can put into free software, and the age at which they get involved. This is not a competition about how much one has had to suffer to arrive at the point at which they are now. [2] Now, about receiving sponsorship "early on" as you said: when I received this internship I was already over 35 years old. I spent the 15 years before that acquiring other skills, working in web development and doing a lot of unpaid work. I don't find this is something to be proud of, on the contrary. It shows how much NGOs, grassroot movements and the free software community rely on unpaid work and might be the main reason that it is easier to participate in FLOSS for contributors who have financial backing (generally people from the Global North) and free time. I'm glad that younger generations can receive sponsorship early, via GSoC for example. > Anyway, without going into the pros or cons of Outreachy, my remark > was something like: > > So we pay people to work on Debian for a few months? And then? Then > they get the opportunity to work on Debian for free! Yay. > Compare that to someone working on Outreachy for the Linux kernel > where a full-time, paid job from Intel, IBM, etc will likely await > them afterwards. > > So Outreachy might help some people get involved in Debian, but do we > have a compelling "career path" for them to stay involved afterwards? > Obviously Ulrike did stay around, but what about others? The fact that we don't know this might hint at the need of having a feedback process for Outreach in Debian. This process could cover: - Did their mentor introduce them to Debian processes, mailinglists, other Debian Developers, teams, tools? - Do they feel they are now independent with regards to Debian work? - Do they want to continue contributing to Debian? If no, what would they need, what are they missing? - What can the Debian Outreach do better in the next rounds? and much more.. Happy to help working out such a process with the current Outreach coordinators in Debian. Having such a feedback process could ensure that the money Debian spends on Outreachy is well used. Last but not least, I'd like to reply to @Hector: I've been re-thinking about your observation "I find 2 out of 3 team coordinators are not Debian contributors/developers". They've been doing this work for several years to my knowledge, so how come we do not consider them to be Debian contributors? Just because they lack an official title? An empathic way to deal with this could be to thank them for their work, and to encourage them to enter the NM process, to become DDs, uploading or non-uploading, and to continue enriching our community. > (we = not necessarily the Debian project, but the wider Debian ecosystem) That, too :) Cheers! Ulrike [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264799720_FLOSSPOLS_Deliverable_D_16_Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings [2] Might be worth looking at the relationship of protestant work ethics and the meritocracy in FLOSS to understand why this kind of argument keeps popping up every now and then.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hi Adrian On 2020/03/18 11:26, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > You also don't need much to do programming. I started with a C64 from my > brother because I didn't even have my own computer and we didn't have > an x86 machine before 1997 which also belonged to my parents and not me. You hit a very important aspect of privilege in your mail here that I'm not sure you're fully conscious of. Back in 1989, me and my little buddies were typing BASIC in to a ZX-Spectrum so that we can play new games. It was great and we learned a lot considering we were just 6 and 7 year olds. At the same time, the girls in our street were playing with dolls because you know, boys are supposed to play with Lego and computers and girls are supposed to play with dolls and pink tea sets. At least, that's the rules society systemically imposed on the world. Back then if there were a microcomputer in the house, girls typically got very little time on it. It's easy to assume that "because I did it, anyone can", but the fact is that if you compare boys and girls and computers, especially at our age, the gender gap becomes massive because of all the problems that have been imposed on us by the world out there. And since it's not Debian's fault that the world is like this I suppose it's fair of people to ask "But why is this Debian's responsibility to solve!? Why should we commit any resources to solving this problem!?". Honestly, I don't think it's a problem we can solve right now, but at the very least, we should do whatever it takes to not be part of the problem, and we should take every small step we can take to be the good guys and help shift things toward equality. Sure, this means that we might invest a lot of time, effort and money in to some individuals that end up elsewhere. Maybe a woman who started out with us ends up going to work for Red Hat. Maybe she comes back to Debian and contributes skills she learned there back here. Maybe women that got started with OpenSUSE outreachy initiatives end up here. I think that's all ok, if all organisations keep contributing, then all of them will eventually get some ROI out of it in terms of investing in people. > I don't think the majority of people in the FOSS community can claims that > they received a sponsorship early on to be able to join the community. On > the contrary, most people will have probably spent a fair amount of money > and their own leisure time to get things done, Linus Torvalds being one > of the most prominent ones who didn't even have the money to pay for his > first i386 machine in full but rather had to finance it through a loan. Linus is an exceptional person and most people who had more than him ended up being very mediocre. But even he had a lot going for him. He went to a fancy university in Europe where he got to learn Unix/Minix and he had his own 386. I think you're setting an unrealistically high expectation if you want people who have less than that to have to aim as high as being like Linus. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2020/03/18 11:58, Enrico Zini wrote: > > Note that another option available to address this, which has been used > > before and isn't used as often as it could, is to ask DAM to have a look > > at the missing membership problem. > > Excuse my ignorance, could you explain what this means? Do you mean that > DAM could be asked to create a more formal level of contributor status > that's not quite yet a project member? I mean that it's DAM's job to help make a person who has a need to be a project member, a project member. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:36:24AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates could be > project members, I understand your concern, but often it's best to be > willing to work with people who are willing to do the work. Note that another option available to address this, which has been used before and isn't used as often as it could, is to ask DAM to have a look at the missing membership problem. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hey Enrico On 2020/03/18 11:58, Enrico Zini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:36:24AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > >> My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates could be >> project members, I understand your concern, but often it's best to be >> willing to work with people who are willing to do the work. > > Note that another option available to address this, which has been used > before and isn't used as often as it could, is to ask DAM to have a look > at the missing membership problem. Excuse my ignorance, could you explain what this means? Do you mean that DAM could be asked to create a more formal level of contributor status that's not quite yet a project member? -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
What are your thoughts on discourse?
Hello dear DPL candidates, I would like all the candidates to reply to this question on discourse: https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-on-discourse/75 Please create an account and answer there. At least it would give you a feeling of how it looks like to use it. The kind of discussions that we have in debian-vote is very much suited for something like discourse where we can +1 with like, etc. I would encourage others DD asking questions to try to use discourse and just use the mail to inform of the discussion started on discourse. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 2020/03/17 18:32, Hector Oron wrote: > Debian Outreach looks like an awesome initiative to bring new blood > into Debian and also people coming from minority groups, however, on > the other hand, it has been a quite expensive to run for the real > benefit provided to Debian project. Reading the delegation text: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00011.html. > I find 2 out of 3 team coordinators are not Debian > contributors/developers, and the other seems to be inactive. > > Q: How do you feel on having non-Debian contributors/developers > being DPL delegates? As it happens, I'm an example of someone who was a DPL delegate when I wasn't a DD yet. This was when the delegation for the DebConf committee was established: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/01/msg3.html My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates could be project members, I understand your concern, but often it's best to be willing to work with people who are willing to do the work. I would suggest some minimal vetting for outsiders who become delegates, for example, just like when someone gets access to Debian machines have to agree to the DMUP, delegates should agree to uphold our community standards (like the CoC for example). > Q: Do you see any flaws on the current Outreach setup? If so, how > would you address them? Yes, there are huge obvious flaws and big problems when it comes to outreach initiatives in Debian. I don't think anyone can deny that. The biggest of which is that we're simply not doing enough about it and we're not committing enough resources toward the problem. I agree that we *might* be able to come up with some more efficient programs that have greater impact for the same amount of money, but then we need Debian contributors who will do all the work and co-ordination to make that happen. Few people seem to have the time and energy for that at the moment. As for how I would address that, I know some Debianites hate the answer of "more discussion", but I think it's what's needed. We need more answers, more ideas, more people to step up and do work, frame the exact problems that we intend to solve and then use our collective skills to hone on on those. I know this answer won't be enough for some people, but I just can't make promises on this front as a prospective DPL, I think it takes the whole project to make this happen and drive it forward to make it a success and to get the best bang for our buck. In the meantime I'm glad that Outreachy can help take care of some of the work. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [2020-03-18 10:26]: > > As a former Outreachy intern myself (2015) I can tell you that it the > > stipend has helped me to invest time to find my way around Debian, time > > during which otherwise I would have had to earn a living elsewhere and > > would never have gotten involved further with Debian. > With all due respect, but I find this a bit pretentious. The vast > majority of people who are getting involved with open source are > initially not being paid for that. That reminds me of a remark I made recently when talking about Outreachy in the context of Debian. First, I should say that I agree with Ulrike that some people won't be able to spend time learning about FOSS if they are not paid through a stipend. Just think of people in Asia or Africa who don't have the luxury of "spare time" we in the west often have. Anyway, without going into the pros or cons of Outreachy, my remark was something like: So we pay people to work on Debian for a few months? And then? Then they get the opportunity to work on Debian for free! Compare that to someone working on Outreachy for the Linux kernel where a full-time, paid job from Intel, IBM, etc will likely await them afterwards. So Outreachy might help some people get involved in Debian, but do we have a compelling "career path" for them to stay involved afterwards? Obviously Ulrike did stay around, but what about others? (we = not necessarily the Debian project, but the wider Debian ecosystem) -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 3/17/20 9:45 PM, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > As a former Outreachy intern myself (2015) I can tell you that it the > stipend has helped me to invest time to find my way around Debian, time > during which otherwise I would have had to earn a living elsewhere and > would never have gotten involved further with Debian. With all due respect, but I find this a bit pretentious. The vast majority of people who are getting involved with open source are initially not being paid for that. It took me at least 10 years until someone came around and started giving me money for what I am doing and from all the open source folks that I know personally, I would argue that it's the same. You also don't need much to do programming. I started with a C64 from my brother because I didn't even have my own computer and we didn't have an x86 machine before 1997 which also belonged to my parents and not me. I don't think the majority of people in the FOSS community can claims that they received a sponsorship early on to be able to join the community. On the contrary, most people will have probably spent a fair amount of money and their own leisure time to get things done, Linus Torvalds being one of the most prominent ones who didn't even have the money to pay for his first i386 machine in full but rather had to finance it through a loan. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On 2020/03/17 22:45, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > (I have no idea if I am allowed to reply to this, or if only DPL > candidates are supposed to reply. Hence forgive me if I'm overstepping a > boundary here. Please tell me if that is the case by the way.) Not problem whatsoever, imho it's important that DPL candidates also gain input from what's important from the project members. I also feel it's a bit silly that we only do this once a year, and I feel that we should have feedback sessions for the DPL at meetings like DebConf as well as online meetings. We've seen at least one lengthy mail from an individual DD on the list, so if someone would have a problem with your comments then that would be a double standard. I don't think there's a need to move a discussion to -project unless it starts to deal with things that are too detail orientated that's not relevant to this election. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
Hi Brian, On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:53:10AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > > I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian > > Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks. > > You are correct. It's going to take 6-12 months of work to create the > foundation, > and that includes drafting by-laws. > Just to confirm here, are you proposing the creation of a new 501(c)(3) public charity? If so, how have you considered the impact of the Yorba determination (which took 4 years) on the ability of Debian to create a new 501(c)(3)? Thanks, Neil signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Costs of running a Debian foundation
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:55:48AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:37 AM Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:46:09PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > So I'm more satisfied with the rationale of creating a Debian > > > foundation, although my concerns about the actual operations still > > > apply (i.e. how are you going to make sure you'll do a better job than > > > the TOs you're not happy with when there have been countless failures > > > of running non-profits in the past). > > > > I have to say that I share those concerns. > > > > Specifically, I believe that SPI was meant to be our foundation. That it > > grew into something more, and that it took several years for it to do > > what we needed it to do is unfortunate; but there is no reason to > > assume, from my point of view at least, that building another foundation > > to do what SPI couldn't do, will bring us more success. > > > > Brian, what's your view on that? > > First off, I'd like to reiterate that I don't expect to end relationships with > our current TOs, including SPI. (I stated this in my platform, but there was > enough potential for misunderstanding that I want to reiterate.) > > I also agree that when looking back at history, that SPI was meant to be the > Debian Foundation that I am advocating for now. However, the thought back > then, > was that since Debian was doing all the work to set up a non-profit, that it > wouldn't be that much more work to provide the same services to other FLOSS > projects. At one point this expansion of scope threatened to overwhelm SPI, > they > struggled for many years, but it appears they have found their stride now and > are successfully servicing over 40 projects today. This makes them one of the > largest homes for FLOSS projects today. It's a remarkable success story, > especially looking at how far SPI has come in not that long a time. > > That said, when you are servicing over 40 projects, your priorities need to > change, and you MUST look at what you can do for ALL your projects, not just > your founding project. > > In hindsight, it was a happy accident that SPI was created the way it was, and > grew into the multi-project home it did. > > However, we - as a project - need to adapt as well. We realize that SPI has > grown into something great but cannot support the Debian project fully and to > the extent we need. We are large enough and have enough requirements in legal > and support services that it warrants founding our own foundations that will > permanently be aligned with the ever evolving goals of the Debian project. > > What we do as a project isn't easy. We don't shy away from things because they > are hard, and have risk. We try to do things that we are right and worth > doing. > In this case, I'll agree, it's not going to be easy. It will be a lot of work. > However, there are reasons to be optimistic. > > 1) Experience: We have Project Members that have a lot of experience running >many different entities and know what has worked and what hasn't. > 2) Depth: We are a large and well-respected project. Many people want to help, >especially if they know it's going to help Debian. > 3) Options: We aren't taking away anything we currently have. Our current TOs >will remain there to support us, giving us time to do it right. > > FreeBSD Foundation works, Postgres Foundation works, KDE e.V. works, Gnome > Foundation works, so we can make Debian Foundations work, too. I'm wondering to what extent this is a US-centric view. Debian.ch and Debian France are Debian-specific TOs; SPI is not. Your explanation above gives a bit more rationale as to why creating a foundation as another TO might be a good idea, but it does not explain how it will avoid the XKCD 927 problem; that is, you're saying we have too many TOs to deal with, so you want to create another layer of TOs to handle the other TOs and now we have even more TOs to deal with. I can see that it might be a good idea to create another TO in the US to be Debian-specific, but I remain unconvinced that it is a good idea in general. -- Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
Re: Costs of running a Debian foundation
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:37 AM Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:46:09PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > So I'm more satisfied with the rationale of creating a Debian > > foundation, although my concerns about the actual operations still > > apply (i.e. how are you going to make sure you'll do a better job than > > the TOs you're not happy with when there have been countless failures > > of running non-profits in the past). > > I have to say that I share those concerns. > > Specifically, I believe that SPI was meant to be our foundation. That it > grew into something more, and that it took several years for it to do > what we needed it to do is unfortunate; but there is no reason to > assume, from my point of view at least, that building another foundation > to do what SPI couldn't do, will bring us more success. > > Brian, what's your view on that? First off, I'd like to reiterate that I don't expect to end relationships with our current TOs, including SPI. (I stated this in my platform, but there was enough potential for misunderstanding that I want to reiterate.) I also agree that when looking back at history, that SPI was meant to be the Debian Foundation that I am advocating for now. However, the thought back then, was that since Debian was doing all the work to set up a non-profit, that it wouldn't be that much more work to provide the same services to other FLOSS projects. At one point this expansion of scope threatened to overwhelm SPI, they struggled for many years, but it appears they have found their stride now and are successfully servicing over 40 projects today. This makes them one of the largest homes for FLOSS projects today. It's a remarkable success story, especially looking at how far SPI has come in not that long a time. That said, when you are servicing over 40 projects, your priorities need to change, and you MUST look at what you can do for ALL your projects, not just your founding project. In hindsight, it was a happy accident that SPI was created the way it was, and grew into the multi-project home it did. However, we - as a project - need to adapt as well. We realize that SPI has grown into something great but cannot support the Debian project fully and to the extent we need. We are large enough and have enough requirements in legal and support services that it warrants founding our own foundations that will permanently be aligned with the ever evolving goals of the Debian project. What we do as a project isn't easy. We don't shy away from things because they are hard, and have risk. We try to do things that we are right and worth doing. In this case, I'll agree, it's not going to be easy. It will be a lot of work. However, there are reasons to be optimistic. 1) Experience: We have Project Members that have a lot of experience running many different entities and know what has worked and what hasn't. 2) Depth: We are a large and well-respected project. Many people want to help, especially if they know it's going to help Debian. 3) Options: We aren't taking away anything we currently have. Our current TOs will remain there to support us, giving us time to do it right. FreeBSD Foundation works, Postgres Foundation works, KDE e.V. works, Gnome Foundation works, so we can make Debian Foundations work, too. Cheers, Brian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
