Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
also sprach Anthony Towns [2015-03-21 06:44 +0100]: > > Also, you intend to spend more than surplus, which at the moment > > you could. What about next year's DPL, or the year after that? > > I think the above offers a reasonable approach there. Still > warrants deciding what the desired ratio between income and > reserves should be though. You're also presuming a steady income stream and no unforeseen expenses, which we currently don't have, at least not in any reliable/planned way. -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "america may be unique in being a country which has leapt from barbarism to decadence without touching civilization." -- john o'hara digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:13:22PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > > Why? What target level are you aiming for and what's the rationale? > Hopefully https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00308.html > helps explain :) This says: ] I would be much more comfortable with about 40k in reserves to ] start with, rather than the > 100k we have now, But that figure's awfully close to the $36k "seed" value from the DebConf 14 budget -- http://media.debconf.org/dc14/report/DebConf14_final_report.en.pdf How do these fit together? Does this imply that Debian should provide a much smaller seeed to debconfs (which might be okay if debconf sponsorships can be collected earlier, maybe), or something else? Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150321055006.ga17...@master.debian.org
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 19:39 +0100]: > > However, let me be clear: I intend on spending /more/ than that > > surplus. I would like our reserves to be at a lower level than > > they are now. > Why? What target level are you aiming for and what's the rationale? A reasonable approach might be to set a budget for expenses as a percentage of the previous reserves (plus any explicit fundraising, eg sponsorship of debconf). SPI numbers for 2014 look something like: - earmark at 2014/01/31: ~$195k (dc14: $12k) - earmark at 2015/01/31: ~$188k (dc14/15: $32k) - non-dc14 expenses feb 2014-jan 2015: ~$40k 40k is about 21% of $190k, so just saying "we'll spend about 21% of our reserves" could be plausible. If we had a stable income, then adopting that process would lead to a steady state where reserves are about 4.8 times whatever Debian's annual income is. It looks to me like Debian's ex-debconf SPI income is somewhere in the range of $40k to $60k per annum? So if you wanted to have a reserve of $100k (ie 2x income), that would involve spending 50% of the reserve each year -- so $94k from $188k this year, $72k from $144k next year, $61k from $122k the year after etc, trending to $50k from $100k. (Note that this breaks down if you want a reserve <= annual income: it'd imply spending 100% or more of reserves. You could address that by budgetting in quarterly or monthly cycles instead of annual though. So maintaining a 40k reserve on a 40k annual income might mean maintaining a 4x reserve on a 10k quarterly budget, so each quarter you can spend 25% of the reserve, rather than each year spending 100% of the reserve) > Also, you intend to spend more than surplus, which at the moment you > could. What about next year's DPL, or the year after that? I think the above offers a reasonable approach there. Still warrants deciding what the desired ratio between income and reserves should be though. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150321054421.ga8...@master.debian.org
More women in key positions ?
Hi Mehdi, Gergely and Neil, thanks for being candidates to this election ! You probably noted that no woman was candidate this year, and that no woman was appointed to the technical committee in the recent replacements. Do you think that it is a problem that there are no women in key positions in Debian ? If yes, what do you plan to ameliorate the situation as a DPL ? Have a nice week-end, PS: please CC me for your replies, I am not subscribed. -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150321035005.ga10...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 21:13 +0100]: > Perhaps for clarity: This is /not/ a sustainable funding stream. We have > reserves which I believe are too high for our income/expenditure, and I > believe that should be spent to further the project. This isn't > something that should be used for long term commitments with a > unavoidable recurring cost. Right, and I am sure we can find once-off ways to spend that money, e.g. all-inclusive holiday packages for DC15 team members, or maybe said interns that implement systems we need (CRM!!). We could also spend those reserves to close the gap between cash flow investments and when the first income, uh, comes in. To me, using the reserves to fund things like e.g. Outreachy wouldn't make much sense IMHO if we don't also work on fundraising at the same time, because it's not sustainable and thus would impeded on the ability of the involved teams to plan and evolve. -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "we americans, we're a simple people... but piss us off, and we'll bomb your cities." -- robin williams, good morning vietnam digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 19:39 +0100]: > > However, let me be clear: I intend on spending /more/ than that > > surplus. I would like our reserves to be at a lower level than > > they are now. > > Why? What target level are you aiming for and what's the rationale? > Hopefully https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00308.html helps explain :) > Also, you intend to spend more than surplus, which at the moment you > could. What about next year's DPL, or the year after that? > Future DPLs could chose to also fundraise, or spend in different areas. I'm not going to carry a large reserve now, because there may be future unspecified needs, especially when history has shown that we're not that these future needs don't seem to occur... Perhaps for clarity: This is /not/ a sustainable funding stream. We have reserves which I believe are too high for our income/expenditure, and I believe that should be spent to further the project. This isn't something that should be used for long term commitments with a unavoidable recurring cost. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to all candidates: Debian in five years?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:59:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > There has been some discussions about the focus moving to other areas of > Free Software, distributions being solved problems, containers as a > alternative/better way to ship software, etc. > > In five years, what should Debian's position and role be in the Free > Software ecosystem? > Are there other positions where we somehow risk ending up? > What can we rely on to get to that ideal position/role? > What are the main things we should worry about (including, but not > limited to recent trends in the Free Software world)? > I think this is somewhat larger a topic than can fit in a single email, or indeed thread. Perhaps a small book may be more appropriate, but I'll try and give a selection of my thoughts below anyway :) The landscape and concepts of software is changing (as it always has) and we need to make sure our key characteristics remain true; * A dedication to technical excellence * We are a community distribution * We integrate * We care about software freedom * We care about our users By doing this, and via our social contract, we create trust. That implied trust is something that has kept Debian going, and is possibly an answer to various trends that are now happening. One of the issues that has come up is around dockerisation, and cloud deployments. However, this does draw parallels with the 1970s, where everything is on a special mainframe, which you can't touch. If you're lucky, you get a terminal which you can interact with. I think that if Debian and the wider free software community somehow imploded and disappeared, this could indeed be the future we're heading towards. However, I'm an optimist at heart. Users still /like/ their own software. The concept that you control your own system is important. In my day job, we sell consultancy and development of free software. A lot of the key plus points we put across becomes threatened by this centralisation which is best summed up by 'vendor neutrality'. If your cloud email provider decides to shut off your access, you get very little recourse in getting your information back out again. If Adobe decide tomorrow that Photoshop isn't what it's all been cracked up to be, and shut down their service, you lose a key part of software which you may have been relying on. If you store all your photos in the cloud, and suddenly there's a huge price hike for doing so, then you have to pay for face massive hassle to re-arrange hosting (assuming you were good and saved backups. You did, didn't you?). Linked to the above is a concern over privacy and security. Debian provides a trust path for your software, so you can know what's on your system, where it came from and what it does. There are, of course, people who don't seem to mind what happens with their personal data, but given the number of emails I keep getting advertising identity theft protection, I expect that there is indeed a general concern. These are still issues which are important to people in general, and is something we can still provide a counter to. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:56:23PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 19:27 +0100]: > > I'd be more sympathetic to funding someone (perhaps via an > > internship, or gap year student who's going on to accountancy) to > > help set up a system so we can track it easier, but only if we > > woudn't be wasting their time with them simply pinging TOs for > > data, and not getting replies. > > Let's assume they'd be wasting time pinging TOs for data and not > getting replies. What would you do in that case? > If a TO can't give us useful data about income and expenditure in a timely manner, that's not acceptible. We should drop the TO unless improvements happen. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 19:39 +0100]: > However, let me be clear: I intend on spending /more/ than that > surplus. I would like our reserves to be at a lower level than > they are now. Why? What target level are you aiming for and what's the rationale? Also, you intend to spend more than surplus, which at the moment you could. What about next year's DPL, or the year after that? -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "and if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear you shout and no one seems to hear and if the band you're in starts playing different tunes i'll see you on the dark side of the moon." -- pink floyd, 1972 digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 19:27 +0100]: > I'd be more sympathetic to funding someone (perhaps via an > internship, or gap year student who's going on to accountancy) to > help set up a system so we can track it easier, but only if we > woudn't be wasting their time with them simply pinging TOs for > data, and not getting replies. Let's assume they'd be wasting time pinging TOs for data and not getting replies. What would you do in that case? -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "a cigarette is the perfect type of pleasure. it is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied." -- oscar wilde digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: Q to all candidates: fundraising
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:09:37PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Question(s) to all candidates: > What is your perception of fundraising in and around Debian? Short of DebConf (and more recently Outreachy), we don't do anything of significance. > If anything, what changes would you like to help implement? I don't think that Debian has ever really needed to raise funds in a significant way, for ongoing costs at least. Also see Gergely's answer for general ideas around fundraising, he's picked up on some of the main ideas I would look for in dedicated fundraising (matching, stretch goals etc all work well). Again though, if there's something that someone wants to do to improve what we do, then let's do that. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to Neil: PPA
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 09:57:28AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Neil, > > in your platform, you advocate PPAs and modernising our build and > infrastructure. > > What's the DPL's role in this? Or, put differently, couldn't you > just start working on this without the DPL hat? Why not? What's the > difference here? > I think this to be two-fold. Firstly, by putting it explicitly in my platform it makes it clear that it's a high priority item for the project if I'm elected as DPL. If people don't view that as something important, than that's fine too - we have other candidates who I'm sure would love your first preference vote :) Secondly, the DPL position holds the ability to influence external parties more than others. The conversations we can have to try and get external interest in getting this (finally) off the ground is much easier as DPL than not. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to all candidates: the "DPL team"
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:44:29AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Notably, the notion of a "DPL team" is absent from all your > platforms. Without trying to suggest that this is a fallacy, I have > a few questions about this: > > Have you considered working with a "DPL team" and if so, why have > you decided against including such plans in your platform? > I'm not entirely clear which version of "DPL team" you're talking about - there's been a range of suggestions in the past on how this could work. It's not a deliberate exclusion from my platform, but it's not something I would set at the heart of what I intend, which is somewhat broader than a simple team which people are 'in' or 'out' of. > On the other hand, if you're open to the idea, what do you think > worked well and what did not work in previous attempts? How would > you approach a "DPL team"? The IRC channel #debian-dpl has been useful, even just as a place to throw some ideas around. I've been involved in that initiative since the early days, and it was useful. Regular meetings seemed to dry up, however. I'd be keen to see anyone who wants to come along and help, do so! > Do you have other ideas involving close cooperation with a few > people for increasing the efficiency of the DPL position, especially > since I understand none of you will be working on this full-time (… > which would be a whole different issue…)? There's various tasks that other people simply can't do, but as I mentioned in another mail: - I'm keen to try and make the DPL job more sustainable. That was my primary concern when deciding to run the first time, and also this time. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, I intend to offload whatever I can get away with from the DPL job. (A slight footnote: I think the DPL should still be accountable to make things happen, but not to do those things themselves. I'd like to try and devolve away tasks, but still make sure they're happening) - Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:47:02PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-13 19:44 +0100]: > > * Meetings. Sprints are great, and it's fantastic to see those > > being promoted for DebCamp. Our main conference each year is > > DebConf, and I would be happy to provide the float so that people > > can get travel sponsorship (for example) confirmed earlier. > > How are you going to finance this sustainably? > See my other answer in this thread to Stefano, but basically Debian would be the guaruntor for the money, but would still expect fundraising to take place. However, I'll also hijack this subthread to run a bit of analysis. From 2013-08-01 [0] to 31-01-2015, looking just at SPI, and ignoring the DebConf earmark; Income: ~130k USD (Though 56.5k was actually from DebConf 13) Cost of sales: 4.1k USD (Processing fees etc) Authorised expenditure: 48.7k Surplus: ~77k Assuming we simply take the 56.5k and earmark it as a float for DebConfs, then we still have a surplus there that hasn't been spent. However, let me be clear: I intend on spending /more/ than that surplus. I would like our reserves to be at a lower level than they are now. Neil [0] Earlier than this, and I'd need to dig out mail archives -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to all candidates: spending money
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:08:02PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-12 10:16 +0100]: > > All candidates: how will you reconcile that with the fact that the DPL > > currently only has a limited vision of what funds are available, and how > > they evolved over time? > > All candidates: what do you think about outsourcing some of the > gruntwork related to accounting and treasury to professional > agencies? The goal here would be to free up our volunteers to > develop Debian and actually force us into more discipline. > My general rule on expenditure is: 1) Is it important that it happens? 2) Is the cost sensible? 3) What problems will we have if we don't spend the money? 4) If it was my /personal/ bank account, would I want to spend that money? If that all passes, then sure, let's spend it. In this particular case, my main concern is that we don't have the input data available to a bookkeeper, or accounting agency. What we're doing isn't /that/ complicated in terms of finance, we don't have multiple cost centres, or particular investment portfolios. I'd be more sympathetic to funding someone (perhaps via an internship, or gap year student who's going on to accountancy) to help set up a system so we can track it easier, but only if we woudn't be wasting their time with them simply pinging TOs for data, and not getting replies. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q to all candidates: dropping SC §5
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Dear candidates, > do you think the time is ripe for dropping section §5 of the Debian > Social Contract [1], namely "Works that do not meet our free software > standards" or should we wait more? > I don't think it's time to drop this section. There's a balance to be struck between encouraging use of free software, and a more ideologically purist view that only free software should exist. In the latter case (one which the FSF has been characterised as supporting, possibly unfairly at times) then it's an absolute position. However, I think this does a disservice to the users, and free software in general. I would rather Debian is spread, and more people use free software that may require non-free works, than to reject them completely. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make §5 obsolete! Great work has been done to try and remove non-free blobs from the kernel, for example. I would love to run Debian on all systems without the need for firmware on open hardware, but that day has not yet come. Until it does[0], we should keep section 5. Neil [0] I genuinely believe that this will happen, one day. But it certainly isn't going to be in the immediate future. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
