-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:51:23PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On May 9, 2017 8:09:28 AM EDT, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> > wrote: > >Jonathan Dowland <j...@debian.org> wrote: > >> However in the interests of transparency I feel that a voluntary, > >> opt-in "Register of Interests" is a good idea for the project. I feel > >> that such a list (populated) would demonstrate the transparency and > >> openness that are part of our project's values. > > > >I think this is a good idea. > > I think it's a horrible idea. One of the major draws of Debian is that we > are all here for our own reasons. I don't judge your motivations and you > don't judge nine.
It's voluntary, so you decide what you want to share. If you don't want to share anything, that's fine. > If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with > Debian. These are frankly none of anyone's business. Nobody is suggesting that it would be a requirement. But I disagree that we're not allowed to know your motivations. The NM process spends considerable time to check that applicants agree with the project's philosophy. If they do, we can conclude that this will motivate them to work on Debian. While also having other motives is perfectly fine, we require people to have at least those motives before we let them join the project. > I've packaged software because a project I was being paid to work on needed > it and I was able to convince them it made sense to put it in the Debian > archive. That's great, and as far as I'm concerned, just disclosing that you have been paid for certain packages would be nice (but again, not doing it is also fine). Whether or not it's relevant to mention who's paying is up to you. I can imagine that some companies would like to be mentioned, because they can use that to show they are favorable to free software. But if they don't wan't to be mentioned, then don't mention them. > If there were a case where I had an actual conflict of interest (e.g. > recommending Debian spend funds with an organization that I had a financial > interest in), that should be disclosed. That's oddly missing from the list. That's a good point, and while I agree it should be on the list, I don't think it will have the effect you expect: this list is voluntary and therefore incomplete. People who intentionally misbehave aren't going to declare their conflict of interest. They wouldn't do that if they had to, either. Finally, I'm not sure how useful this list would be, but I don't see a problem in setting it up. If someone makes good use of it, great. If not, nothing is lost. Thanks, Bas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJZEu4bAAoJEJzRfVgHwHE6bZAP/jm7P7v9kEazuuiQaUKnpMFc yLW0Es6IalXmQVNJ/AHe4rwDMuC28CppECEejJVt4SiHkUclYMt++QzUWHLmNrCf WraVuUGh27SMpnlacC0AxyDLXTtTGHHeA/0dwS/C4UHynRwTyVgIjuwwapwbofGi IJqcUQlnAiVO7mzCLSZUTyEwxtY6kRjBx8QJ/0vd8lZ9+uh4nPtmq4+m3P0kziTb A6vrTnJwUjLWbPhBsEbVtnTDcCK+fNcnNMjbXJYWIo8a13pJvZu6krtXGgoWLxmE zImwySagYZC1XIxis1AV6exLYWCmHdJYvbvaBFk7Y2UielPntOV3ps+AflZmAoXX Cy2+gAJAR8X5bzEqluHwvqA5V2YSMeDv6BKYBtUdoq3BSc7NcmfdTGXMCIkwrGPC ylvlhMck015f/TW6BeqZOVeyV02/0zZRPLAZUAbB2dhV1c8CyctVnRCrZcPPQx1s 5F9eqlHqFQgLoVL/grLFYUYWnGbixQ4++Vy79ENV1GngvA7h9XJ5wNnI3owUgBYA BuEJSljBj6YudqIrzO4QPwuMlsv2BaiI2c7U9WcvmbJnfbS2iMwHcfhPRbuI+DF4 xqb7cuvulHUZxrc2HCqktdg7GSfqFTaCPVDYZAvwakvvXThA9lUFYdjHDo/HaQX8 9Bo8P6pq3YEs6vqtABvC =Fmz0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----