Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Richard Darst wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:19:57AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: No. You (leader@, auditor@) will need to do this on their own. If you want to keep track of the money separately, you'd better keep it marked Debconfn and give leader@, auditor@ authority over it as well. That is what I thought, and why I asked. Of course, the way to keep balances separate is to put them is separate accounts. It seems that with regards to Zack the question is rather if money should be tracked separately - as it has been in the past. Thus, I encourage you all to think about how the DebConf share of Debian money will be tracked. My first reaction is I don't want to be the one doing it. I was going to try to make better money management my goal this year, but if the safest tool for it is taken away, I'm not sure if I want to be the one attempting this anymore. You can always open your favourite spreasheet (sc, lscs, ocalc, gnumeric etc.) and track incoming and outgoing money. That's how we did this in the past before organisations like ffis were able to earmark money and provide a digital view to the money. How do you all imagine the DebConf/Debian money separation would work if accounts are merged? It seems that for Zack there should be no separation at all. Maybe you all should first discuss whether Debian and Debconf money should be tracked differently or whether Debian organises Debconf donations for Debconf are just donations for Debian. Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: The basic principle which is at stake here is that DebConf/Debian money should *not* be separated. There are two reasons for that: 1) sponsors donate money to DebConf because it's the Debian conference; 2) in past years Debian has poured into DebConf something like 70'000$ (very approximate number, reconstructed by others in the past on this list), if you want a sharp distinction, one might imagine Debian claiming back that money, which would be very unpleasant for everybody. At least a large part of it could be moved back to Debian... Getting back to your question, I believe that DebConf should be an event which, in an *amortized* way, costs no money. To cover up for the years in which the costs are higher than raised money, Debian money should be used as a bank for DebConf organization. To me this sounds more like it would would be helpful for you all if the money would continue to be earmarked differently in the future but that the Debian project leader and accountant should get a view to that money as well. In case that the conference doesn't end up with a sum of zero surplus money would be moved to the Debian pool. I case of a negative sum the leader approves to move money from the Debian pool to the conference pool. Keeping track of the cost year after year is up to the conference budget, which already exists and should allow everybody (including people outside Debian, for transparency) to see the income/outcome money year after year. Considering all this, I fail to see why merging accounts *at FFIS* makes thing any worse. It seems to me that it'll be easier for you to keep the accounts separate. The problem that you (leader@) doesn't have an overview on what's going on at the conference part can be solved quite easily by extending your account. There's one more thing that might help you in this discussion. Let's assume the accounts are merged. How do the Debconf organisers get to know the actual balance and can track incoming money? Either they get a view over the entire Debian money as well, or they query leader@ or auditor@ . Regards, Joey -- The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media. -- H. Peter Anvin ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: to know the actual total amount of reserves would need to check two accounts instead of one. Maybe it's easier to write this as relation like in databases: account/login 1 n earmarks for money The auditors account is totally separate from your account. Both can view some projects. They can be the same, but the could be different, they could also be several of which some are shared. I've made a poor choice of words above. account was not meant to be a synonym of login, but rather account in the bank sense, as in savings account. So what I meant above was that it would be handier if we could see the total amount of savings in a single table, instead of having to check 2 distinct tables and sum up money. Maybe I don't understand this in detail as (a) there is only one bank account for ffis used for donations, and that if your account is able to view both the Debian and the Debconf earmarking you do get one overview table with the sum of both earmarks and a total sum. To me this sounds exactly like what you are looking for. ... as I wrote, maybe I don't really understand the discussion. Regards, Joey -- This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:51, Martin Schulze j...@infodrom.org wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Additionally, keeping the separation will further the feeling in the community that DebConf and Debian are two separate entities, while they That's up to you. You don't need to tell the community that you're tracking money separately. I thought there used to be a separate earmark for DebConf in the SPI accounts too; but there doesn't seem to be now. Having FFIS work the same as SPI does from Debian's POV seems like a win. (I just wrote an email about how having a separate account would make sense because it'd be just like SPI, then deleted it when I found out SPI doesn't seem to actually be like that. How is anyone currently keeping track of how much DebConf is making/losing in the US, without a specific earmark in the SPI accounts, btw? For comparison, for linux.conf.au we just have financial statements for each conference, which to date has always ended up as a net positive, so year-to-year tradeoffs haven't mattered.) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:51:59PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Same reason as above: it shouldn't be me asking for that.
That's rediculous. If you would like to have access and view, you
should ask. We cannot process your request unless the Debconf people
agree, though, howver putting them in Cc will give them a chance to
agree and disagree. Two of them have agreed already if I remember
correctly.
Well, it's a matter of personal taste I guess. Instead of asking
directly and letting DebConf team know via Cc:, I've opted for
discussing the matter first with DebConf team and only in the end come
to FFIS with a consensual decision asking to act.
FWIW, the two of them have already agreed to merge the accounts.
to know the actual total amount of reserves would need to check two
accounts instead of one.
Maybe it's easier to write this as relation like in databases:
account/login 1 n earmarks for money
The auditors account is totally separate from your account. Both can
view some projects. They can be the same, but the could be different,
they could also be several of which some are shared.
I've made a poor choice of words above. account was not meant to be a
synonym of login, but rather account in the bank sense, as in
savings account. So what I meant above was that it would be handier
if we could see the total amount of savings in a single table, instead
of having to check 2 distinct tables and sum up money.
I understand it seems just a minor annoyance, but trust me: when you
already have several trusted organizations around the world to check,
adding an extra fork in even one of them is a bit of a PITA.
All in all, I observe we're now re-discussing things from
scratch---starting from Richard's mail---while at the beginning of this
thread it seemed to me we agreed in going ahead with the merge.
I'm sorry. I hope that I don't add more confusion. I'm only trying
to help and offer possibilities and answer questions if somebody asks.
Absolutely agreed, and thanks for doing that.
Additionally, it occurs to me that you're discussing things that can
be solved much easier than you think - or I'm unable to parse some of
the mails.
Well, barring disagreement from others, it seems to me that the initial
proposal of doing the merge is very simple.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Hello, On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:19:57AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: No. You (leader@, auditor@) will need to do this on their own. If you want to keep track of the money separately, you'd better keep it marked Debconfn and give leader@, auditor@ authority over it as well. That is what I thought, and why I asked. Of course, the way to keep balances separate is to put them is separate accounts. I agree with the goal here, but... My efforts at tracking DebConf money have not gone so well. This is in part caused by me not ever having access to look at accounts, and not being (on site|in charge of money) once DebConf starts. Other people have had more success than me. Thus, I encourage you all to think about how the DebConf share of Debian money will be tracked. My first reaction is I don't want to be the one doing it. I was going to try to make better money management my goal this year, but if the safest tool for it is taken away, I'm not sure if I want to be the one attempting this anymore. There is plenty else that could be said, such as well, if you were actually able to see DebConf accounts, you wouldn't find things so hard, but that can come if anyone is interested in talking about it. I'm fine with zack spending DebConf money in an emergency, I'm fine merging accounts as long as I'm not the one in charge of tracking things, and maybe I'd be fine trying to track things if we found a way to do it better. How do you all imagine the DebConf/Debian money separation would work if accounts are merged? - Richard -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - boltzmann: up 577 days, 6:36 |http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740 | Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 05:02:00AM -0500, Richard Darst wrote:
How do you all imagine the DebConf/Debian money separation would work
if accounts are merged?
The basic principle which is at stake here is that DebConf/Debian money
should *not* be separated.
There are two reasons for that: 1) sponsors donate money to DebConf
because it's the Debian conference; 2) in past years Debian has poured
into DebConf something like 70'000$ (very approximate number,
reconstructed by others in the past on this list), if you want a sharp
distinction, one might imagine Debian claiming back that money, which
would be very unpleasant for everybody.
Getting back to your question, I believe that DebConf should be an event
which, in an *amortized* way, costs no money. To cover up for the years
in which the costs are higher than raised money, Debian money should be
used as a bank for DebConf organization.
Keeping track of the cost year after year is up to the conference
budget, which already exists and should allow everybody (including
people outside Debian, for transparency) to see the income/outcome money
year after year. Considering all this, I fail to see why merging
accounts *at FFIS* makes thing any worse.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:28:38PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
To me this sounds more like it would would be helpful for you all if
the money would continue to be earmarked differently in the future but
that the Debian project leader and accountant should get a view to
that money as well.
AFAIK, this is what is already happening on the other side of the ocean
(i.e. at SPI): money are all together, with specific DebConf earmark. I
presume DebConf people could know the earmark by asking the SPI
treasurer. The anomaly of the present situation at FFIS is to have 2
separate accounts, instead of the earmarking.
Note that the problem of two separate accounts is not only of visibility
(although that is the most pressing one). The other problem is that I
still consider that in case of some emergency---say $n servers failing
tomorrow at the same time---Debian should be able to use DebConf money
to buy back those servers, without having to wait for the authorization
of the liaisons people for the DebConf account (which are not the same
liaisons people for the Debian account).
Current SPI setting allows for that, while current FFIS setting
(i.e. the split) does not. Obviously, I hope something like the above
will *never* happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about
similar scenarios.
Hope this sheds some (more) light,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Hi! Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:28:38PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: To me this sounds more like it would would be helpful for you all if the money would continue to be earmarked differently in the future but that the Debian project leader and accountant should get a view to that money as well. AFAIK, this is what is already happening on the other side of the ocean (i.e. at SPI): money are all together, with specific DebConf earmark. I presume DebConf people could know the earmark by asking the SPI treasurer. The anomaly of the present situation at FFIS is to have 2 separate accounts, instead of the earmarking. No. We do have earmarkings, otherwise you won't be able to see anything. It's just that the leader account is limited to Debian and Holger's account is limited to Debconf. Maybe all you want to have is that the Debian project leader and accountant should get a view to that money as well. I already wrote that it's no problem to enrich the leader account with Debconf information. Note that the problem of two separate accounts is not only of visibility (although that is the most pressing one). The other problem is that I still consider that in case of some emergency---say $n servers failing tomorrow at the same time---Debian should be able to use DebConf money to buy back those servers, without having to wait for the authorization of the liaisons people for the DebConf account (which are not the same liaisons people for the Debian account). That's a political question you (DPL and Debconf orga) need to solve, nothing that can be solved technically. Current SPI setting allows for that, while current FFIS setting (i.e. the split) does not. Obviously, I hope something like the above will *never* happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about similar scenarios. Sorry, but... Why didn't you just ask? The same is possible here as well - as I've outlined several days ago as well. So, is this all? Then all Debconf people need to do is (a) decide that leader@ and auditor@ should be able to view Debconf money as well - AND - (b) authorise leader@ for payments. Signed mails are welcome. Regards, Joey -- The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media. -- H. Peter Anvin ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:24:24PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
I already wrote that it's no problem to enrich the leader account with
Debconf information.
Yes, and I got that, but as long as the accounts are separate, I don't
think it should be me asking for that, but rather the current DebConf
liaisons. (Otherwise you'd have all the rights to refuse my request.)
Note that the problem of two separate accounts is not only of visibility
(although that is the most pressing one). The other problem is that I
still consider that in case of some emergency---say $n servers failing
tomorrow at the same time---Debian should be able to use DebConf money
to buy back those servers, without having to wait for the authorization
of the liaisons people for the DebConf account (which are not the same
liaisons people for the Debian account).
That's a political question you (DPL and Debconf orga) need to solve,
nothing that can be solved technically.
Agreed. Arguably, I should have dropper FFIS in my reply (I did in a
previous one, although someone added you back), as I precisely wanted to
discuss that with DebConf team.
Current SPI setting allows for that, while current FFIS setting
(i.e. the split) does not. Obviously, I hope something like the above
will *never* happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about
similar scenarios.
Sorry, but... Why didn't you just ask? The same is possible here as
well - as I've outlined several days ago as well.
Same reason as above: it shouldn't be me asking for that.
So, is this all? Then all Debconf people need to do is
(a) decide that leader@ and auditor@ should be able to view Debconf
money as well - AND -
(b) authorise leader@ for payments.
That would solve the problems outlined in this thread, but it would
still be worse than the merge, for a very simple reason: either me or
the auditors, to know the actual total amount of reserves would need to
check two accounts instead of one. It's clearly doable, but it's also
clearly less handy than the merge situation.
Additionally, keeping the separation will further the feeling in the
community that DebConf and Debian are two separate entities, while they
are not. We've been trying to fix that, together with several DebConf
team people, since the Debian vs DebConf BoF at DebConf10. This is, as
well as yours, a point I've already made in this thread.
All in all, I observe we're now re-discussing things from
scratch---starting from Richard's mail---while at the beginning of this
thread it seemed to me we agreed in going ahead with the merge.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Current SPI setting allows for that, while current FFIS setting (i.e. the split) does not. Obviously, I hope something like the above will *never* happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about similar scenarios. Sorry, but... Why didn't you just ask? The same is possible here as well - as I've outlined several days ago as well. Same reason as above: it shouldn't be me asking for that. That's rediculous. If you would like to have access and view, you should ask. We cannot process your request unless the Debconf people agree, though, howver putting them in Cc will give them a chance to agree and disagree. Two of them have agreed already if I remember correctly. So, is this all? Then all Debconf people need to do is (a) decide that leader@ and auditor@ should be able to view Debconf money as well - AND - (b) authorise leader@ for payments. That would solve the problems outlined in this thread, but it would still be worse than the merge, for a very simple reason: either me or the auditors, to know the actual total amount of reserves would need to check two accounts instead of one. It's clearly doable, but it's also clearly less handy than the merge situation. Nope. Maybe it's easier to write this as relation like in databases: account/login 1 n earmarks for money The auditors account is totally separate from your account. Both can view some projects. They can be the same, but the could be different, they could also be several of which some are shared. Additionally, keeping the separation will further the feeling in the community that DebConf and Debian are two separate entities, while they That's up to you. You don't need to tell the community that you're tracking money separately. You also don't need to try to get an even sum after each Debconf, however you wrote earlier that you would like this. Seems you are separating money already. All in all, I observe we're now re-discussing things from scratch---starting from Richard's mail---while at the beginning of this thread it seemed to me we agreed in going ahead with the merge. I'm sorry. I hope that I don't add more confusion. I'm only trying to help and offer possibilities and answer questions if somebody asks. Additionally, it occurs to me that you're discussing things that can be solved much easier than you think - or I'm unable to parse some of the mails. Regards, Joey -- The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media. -- H. Peter Anvin ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:47:50PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: That would solve the problems outlined in this thread, but it would still be worse than the merge, for a very simple reason: either me or the auditors, to know the actual total amount of reserves would need to check two accounts instead of one. It's clearly doable, but it's also clearly less handy than the merge situation. Is there a technical difference in the process of FFIS merging the accounts versus the DPL assuming control of both accounts, authorizing all the funds in the DebConf account to be transferred to the Debian account, and then closing the DebConf account afterwards? If there is, are there any legal implications to either option? ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Clint Adams wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:47:50PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
That would solve the problems outlined in this thread, but it would
still be worse than the merge, for a very simple reason: either me or
the auditors, to know the actual total amount of reserves would need to
check two accounts instead of one. It's clearly doable, but it's also
clearly less handy than the merge situation.
Is there a technical difference in the process of FFIS merging the
accounts versus the DPL assuming control of both accounts, authorizing
all the funds in the DebConf account to be transferred to the Debian
account, and then closing the DebConf account afterwards?
Yes. A lot.
The difference is between:
UPDATE account_details SET earmark = 'Debian' WHERE earmark = 'Debconf';
DELETE FROM account_authority WHERE earmark = 'Debconf';
DELETE FROM account_views WHERE earmark = 'Debconf';
versus
INSERT INTO account_authority (earmark,name) ('Debconf','Zack');
If there is, are there any legal implications to either option?
None.
Regards,
Joey
--
The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media. -- H. Peter Anvin
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Martin Schulze wrote: Since this is a general decision, I assume that Ganneff and Michael are fine with joining the money? I'm fine with joining the money. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Samstag, 12. Februar 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: So, if this is consensus (as I believe), it looks like the proper solution of merging DebConf FFIS account into the Debian one is just at hand. I'd like to receive comments on this. I agree and the comments below assume we have consensus on this :-) On FFIS side, I guess there is a single liaison person who is authorized to take decision on the DebConf account, is that you Holger? There were three people, Michael Schultheiss, Jörg Jaspert and me. Since this is a general decision, I assume that Ganneff and Michael are fine with joining the money? If yes, and unless there are objections, please ask FFIS to do the merge (noting down the DebConf earmark, which might come handy for future DebConf budgets). Ok, will do so in seven days to give people time to object. On Freitag, 11. Februar 2011, Martin Schulze wrote: No problem from our side. Thank you Joey and everybody at ffis e.V. for supporting us so well for so long! There are two options you may want to discuss further: (a) move Debconf10 money to Debian account or (b) keep Debconf10 money where it is and add permission to view it for leader@d.o and auditor@d.o (same for upcoming Debconfs) I'll keep my hands off until your decision. Regards, Joey -- Debian automatically detects USB sticks. This is so non-Debian. -- Joey ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:32:39PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: There are two options you may want to discuss further: (a) move Debconf10 money to Debian account If you did this, could you keep track of the money which was raised/spend for DebConf separately from the other Debian money? I think this would be one of the keys for DebConf accountability. Thanks, - Richard -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - boltzmann: up 575 days, 17:55 |http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740 | Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Hi Richard! Richard Darst wrote: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:32:39PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: There are two options you may want to discuss further: (a) move Debconf10 money to Debian account If you did this, could you keep track of the money which was raised/spend for DebConf separately from the other Debian money? I think this would be one of the keys for DebConf accountability. No. You (leader@, auditor@) will need to do this on their own. If you want to keep track of the money separately, you'd better keep it marked Debconfn and give leader@, auditor@ authority over it as well. Regards, Joey -- Whenever you meet yourself you're in a time loop or in front of a mirror. ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Hi, On Samstag, 12. Februar 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: So, if this is consensus (as I believe), it looks like the proper solution of merging DebConf FFIS account into the Debian one is just at hand. I'd like to receive comments on this. I agree and the comments below assume we have consensus on this :-) On FFIS side, I guess there is a single liaison person who is authorized to take decision on the DebConf account, is that you Holger? There were three people, Michael Schultheiss, Jörg Jaspert and me. If yes, and unless there are objections, please ask FFIS to do the merge (noting down the DebConf earmark, which might come handy for future DebConf budgets). Ok, will do so in seven days to give people time to object. On Freitag, 11. Februar 2011, Martin Schulze wrote: No problem from our side. Thank you Joey and everybody at ffis e.V. for supporting us so well for so long! cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Hi, On Freitag, 4. Februar 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On the same subject, can we please pour the other DebConf money we have in Europe where they can be seen by DPL and Auditors (i.e. the Debian FFIS account)? Currently there is no visibility of those money to us, beside the mention of them that I've been seen in the past on this list. Past DebConf balance(s) make clear where those money come from, so I really don't see any advantage in keeping them separate. ... this request is still valid and AFAICT independent to the other one. Ping. So you can see money at FFIS? So this means you're looking for money from debconf3 (Oslo), debconf5 (Helsinki), debconf7 (Edinburgh)? Anywhere else? dc9 was handled with FFIS. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Freitag, 4. Februar 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On the same subject, can we please pour the other DebConf money we have
in Europe where they can be seen by DPL and Auditors (i.e. the Debian
FFIS account)? Currently there is no visibility of those money to us,
beside the mention of them that I've been seen in the past on this list.
Past DebConf balance(s) make clear where those money come from, so I
really don't see any advantage in keeping them separate.
... this request is still valid and AFAICT independent to the other one.
Ping.
So you can see money at FFIS? So this means you're looking for money
from debconf3 (Oslo), debconf5 (Helsinki), debconf7 (Edinburgh)?
Anywhere else? dc9 was handled with FFIS.
No, I cannot see *debconf* money at FFIS and that is the main problem
I'm trying to solve. The same is true for auditors, which make the
problem even worse. At the very minimum, I want read access to that
money for me and the auditors.
Moreover, as DPL, I'd like also to have write access to those money,
just in case something bad happen and I need to pay something on those
money.
All that considered, I would prefer if we can simply move those money to
the regular Debian FFIS account and get rid of the DebConf-specific
account at FFIS. I see no point in having those two separate.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Hi, Joey, please comment on this, what options do you see for us? On Freitag, 11. Februar 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: No, I cannot see *debconf* money at FFIS and that is the main problem I'm trying to solve. The same is true for auditors, which make the problem even worse. At the very minimum, I want read access to that money for me and the auditors. Moreover, as DPL, I'd like also to have write access to those money, just in case something bad happen and I need to pay something on those money. All that considered, I would prefer if we can simply move those money to the regular Debian FFIS account and get rid of the DebConf-specific account at FFIS. I see no point in having those two separate. I agree. (Especially as we want to get rid of the (perceived) seperation between DebConf and Debian.) cheers, Holger (until this is solved properly, you (Stefano/DPL) can ping me anytime and I can access that data from the webfrontend and relay to you.) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, Joey, please comment on this, what options do you see for us? On Freitag, 11. Februar 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: No, I cannot see *debconf* money at FFIS and that is the main problem I'm trying to solve. The same is true for auditors, which make the problem even worse. At the very minimum, I want read access to that money for me and the auditors. In the past Debconf organisators were different than the Debian project and thus money is not shared per default. If it is fine for Debconf people, you can get a view to that part as well with regards to ffis e.V. The same applies for the current Debian auditor. Moreover, as DPL, I'd like also to have write access to those money, just in case something bad happen and I need to pay something on those money. That's something you'll have to sort out with the Debconf people. All that considered, I would prefer if we can simply move those money to the regular Debian FFIS account and get rid of the DebConf-specific account at FFIS. I see no point in having those two separate. I agree. (Especially as we want to get rid of the (perceived) seperation between DebConf and Debian.) No problem from our side. Regards, Joey -- Long noun chains don't automatically imply security. -- Bruce Schneier ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 12:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:01:29PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
I recently spoke with Jimmy about this the other day, and he still has
them. He is busy with school at the moment, so he isn't actively
following the mailing lists. (He still is on IRC if you need him.) If
you like, I can coordinate with him about getting these funds to the
appropriate persons.
Please do. It is significantly more difficult to plan ahead Debian
expenses (hardware replacement, sprints, etc.) when money are scattered
around all sort of venues.
That has been commented upon by Jimmy later on, and there is no problem
in postponing this. However ...
On the same subject, can we please pour the other DebConf money we have
in Europe where they can be seen by DPL and Auditors (i.e. the Debian
FFIS account)? Currently there is no visibility of those money to us,
beside the mention of them that I've been seen in the past on this list.
Past DebConf balance(s) make clear where those money come from, so I
really don't see any advantage in keeping them separate.
... this request is still valid and AFAICT independent to the other one.
Ping.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:01:29PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
I recently spoke with Jimmy about this the other day, and he still has
them. He is busy with school at the moment, so he isn't actively
following the mailing lists. (He still is on IRC if you need him.) If
you like, I can coordinate with him about getting these funds to the
appropriate persons.
Please do. It is significantly more difficult to plan ahead Debian
expenses (hardware replacement, sprints, etc.) when money are scattered
around all sort of venues.
On the same subject, can we please pour the other DebConf money we have
in Europe where they can be seen by DPL and Auditors (i.e. the Debian
FFIS account)? Currently there is no visibility of those money to us,
beside the mention of them that I've been seen in the past on this list.
Past DebConf balance(s) make clear where those money come from, so I
really don't see any advantage in keeping them separate.
TIA,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:25:30PM -0500, micah anderson wrote: On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:47:27 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz ji...@debconf.org wrote: Hi everyone! I know I'm perpetually optimistic, but in this case I have physical evidence to back it up. At the end of DebConf9, we had a bunch of leftover physical currency in euros, which I counted and brought back to the US for DebConf10's use, intending to convert it to USD once we got our local bank account set up. I did tell Michael the total amount of euros in this cash surplus, but according to him that sum did not get included in budget.ods's DC9 surplus estimate of $7. I just counted it again, and the grand total is: €3935 !! According to Google's current exchange rate, which is slightly but not drastically better than the one we're likely to get, that's equivalent to $4939. I will get this converted and deposited into our primary DC10 bank account on Tuesday, which due to the Independence Day holiday weekend is the next work day for banks here. I'm just curious, did this money ever get deposited? Its quite a bit of money to lose track of and I've been going through debconf receipts recently and came on this and wondered what happened to it. Looking at SPI treasure's report, I have not seen it, but it have been deposited anyway. Jimmy? ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Ana Guerrero a...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:25:30PM -0500, micah anderson wrote: On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:47:27 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz ji...@debconf.org wrote: Hi everyone! I know I'm perpetually optimistic, but in this case I have physical evidence to back it up. At the end of DebConf9, we had a bunch of leftover physical currency in euros, which I counted and brought back to the US for DebConf10's use, intending to convert it to USD once we got our local bank account set up. I did tell Michael the total amount of euros in this cash surplus, but according to him that sum did not get included in budget.ods's DC9 surplus estimate of $7. I just counted it again, and the grand total is: €3935 !! According to Google's current exchange rate, which is slightly but not drastically better than the one we're likely to get, that's equivalent to $4939. I will get this converted and deposited into our primary DC10 bank account on Tuesday, which due to the Independence Day holiday weekend is the next work day for banks here. I'm just curious, did this money ever get deposited? Its quite a bit of money to lose track of and I've been going through debconf receipts recently and came on this and wondered what happened to it. Looking at SPI treasure's report, I have not seen it, but it have been deposited anyway. Jimmy? I recently spoke with Jimmy about this the other day, and he still has them. He is busy with school at the moment, so he isn't actively following the mailing lists. (He still is on IRC if you need him.) If you like, I can coordinate with him about getting these funds to the appropriate persons. -Brian ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Extra money we forgot we had
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:47:27 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz ji...@debconf.org wrote: Hi everyone! I know I'm perpetually optimistic, but in this case I have physical evidence to back it up. At the end of DebConf9, we had a bunch of leftover physical currency in euros, which I counted and brought back to the US for DebConf10's use, intending to convert it to USD once we got our local bank account set up. I did tell Michael the total amount of euros in this cash surplus, but according to him that sum did not get included in budget.ods's DC9 surplus estimate of $7. I just counted it again, and the grand total is: €3935 !! According to Google's current exchange rate, which is slightly but not drastically better than the one we're likely to get, that's equivalent to $4939. I will get this converted and deposited into our primary DC10 bank account on Tuesday, which due to the Independence Day holiday weekend is the next work day for banks here. I'm just curious, did this money ever get deposited? Its quite a bit of money to lose track of and I've been going through debconf receipts recently and came on this and wondered what happened to it. micah pgpDYakFO9AiX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
