Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
* Martin Michlmayr t...@cyrius.com [2012-03-23 16:28:24 CET]: - And Zack suggested sorting by % donated to Debian. It still sounds fishy to claim that debian.ch donates 100% to Debian. Actually, debian.ch is not a vendor but a reseller of goods from others, and those organizations don't donate their profit to the Debian project to the best of my knowledge? It isn't even documented *which* those organizations are, and from what I understood they might be different ones for different stuff? One could easily create an umbrella organization (pun not intended) around a for-profit organization that let's say adds 10 cents onto the prize of the stuff and then come and claim that they are given all their profit to Debian. To me, this sounds highly fishy, and actually claiming that it *is* a special case, no matter what other people say isn't really buying any trust into what that person says neither, rather the contrary. debian.ch itself is a non-profit indeed, but there are (unknown) parties in the background that make their profit on that base and I can't find any documentation on whether debian.ch gets special discount with those vendors or how those vendors are related to Debian, if at all. Personally, I'd just divide the page into two but I can see the argument for 3 categories. I agree with Luca that sorting by percentage is over-engineered. I'm also fine with Francesca's proposal to add notes describing whether they donate (but I'd prefer those that donate to be listed first.) This would be highly misleading IMNSHO, for the above mentioned reasons. Enjoy, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
I wanted to comment on this bug: Regarding trusted organizations and the web site: not all of them sell merchandise. The trusted organizations should be listed on http://www.debian.org/donations There is bug #634986 already for which I'll accept ownership. Regarding the merchandise web page: I believe it's important to express whether a vendor donates parts of their revenues to Debian. I think we're all in agreement that this makes sense. The only disagreement I see is how to sort the organizations: - One proposal is to divide the page into two: those organizations that donate to Debian and those that do not. - Another proposal is to have 3 categories: Debian trusted orgs (which sell merchandise), vendors that donate to Debian, and vendors that do not. - And Zack suggested sorting by % donated to Debian. Personally, I'd just divide the page into two but I can see the argument for 3 categories. I agree with Luca that sorting by percentage is over-engineered. I'm also fine with Francesca's proposal to add notes describing whether they donate (but I'd prefer those that donate to be listed first.) In any case, this is just a minor detail and I think it should be decided by the merchandise folks (i.e. Francesca and Luca). I think the next steps are: - For the merchandise folks to contact those vendors to see if they make donations to Debian (and if so how: to SPI, to ffis, etc?) - For the accounting people: check if we've received donations from the vendors that claim to donate to us. - For the merchandise folks to pick one of the proposals above and change the web page. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:41:58PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
[ Quoted text reordered ]
Strange, I found Francesca's reply quite clear and linear/successive,
especially considering that the two problems we are discussing are yes
linked, but the solution is independent from one to the other (read
below for more details).
[ Completely off-topic, but when I re-order quoted text is not because
the original mail was not linear/successive. Usually it's rather just
because I need to factorize part of my answer and relate them to part
of the original mail which are interleaved by other parts to whom I
want to answer differently. ]
I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was
easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I
believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on
www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how
important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific
per-organization sub-page might be warranted.
I would argue against so-much specific pages on www.d.o: why should
Debian itself give information about other organizations? Please note
the double quotes: IMHO this should be done by the Trusted Organizations
themselves on their own pages, given that they are different entities
WRT to Debian, while still being Debian.
That is a good point. Still, a potential reason I (now) see for having
subpages would be that: (1) there is too much information to keep in a
single overview page of trusted organizations and (2) we cannot rely on
a common presentation of such information by relying on external
website. All in all, I think this is completely a call of the -www team,
I'm fine with whatever you people will come up to.
It could be seen as too much business-oriented, but I think that no one
will complain if Trusted Organizations are the first choice available,
given that Debian has full power over them (read below).
I mostly skip further comments on this aspects, as I've already
clarified my take. In short, my bottom line is that I have a slight
preference for listing trusted organizations (which do merchandising as
well) first.
Frankly speaking, this would be surely a mess. It is already difficult
to maintain the current list, given that apart the status of the vendor
(easily verifiable, just visit the website), there is no way to verify:
first, if they are behaving correctly WRT the customers (shipping on
time the selected goodies) and, second, how much they actually donate
back to Debian.
I fully trust your judgement on this.
Thanks for revamping this,
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
Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
tags 613832 + patch thanks Hi there! Adding i...@debian.ch to the cc: given that it is used as an example, please someone on the board corrects me if something below is wrong. On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:43:43 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [ Quoted text reordered ] Strange, I found Francesca's reply quite clear and linear/successive, especially considering that the two problems we are discussing are yes linked, but the solution is independent from one to the other (read below for more details). On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote: Last but not least, at that point we would be obliged to list every Debian sisters (or to be correct Debian Trusted Organization): No, we should not assume that any random Trusted Organization sells merchandise, which by no means is sometime even more time consuming that maintaining a package. as the DPL (added in CC) said to me yesterday on IRC this kind of list already exists (http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations) and Debian Auditors take care of it. Adding it also in the merchandise page could turn out in unwanted duplication of information. BTW, I think that the Debian Trusted Organization list deserves a specific place on the website as it's a very official page and important page. Thanks Francesca for the Cc. It seems to me that there are two intertwined aspects at stake. The first one is where to maintain the list of trusted organizations as per constitution §5.1.11 and §9.3. Maintaining that list is up to the auditors, according to the current delegation. Fully agree, but to start I am more interested in the second point, given that it is easier to be solved (read below). I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific per-organization sub-page might be warranted. I would argue against so-much specific pages on www.d.o: why should Debian itself give information about other organizations? Please note the double quotes: IMHO this should be done by the Trusted Organizations themselves on their own pages, given that they are different entities WRT to Debian, while still being Debian. Just think about debian.ch, as a clear example: 1) debian.ch is a legally-recognized *association*, with a clear status and a board. OTOH and IIRC (again, please someone correct me if I am wrong) Debian does not have any legal status. 2) debian.ch should be self-contained in its resources (at least the website and a community mailing list), something which probably would not be possible if it needs a sub-page on www.d.o. 3) if a Trusted Organization must have a sub-page on www.d.o, why should not it use *all* the Debian resources for its work? Something like www.d.o/switzerland/ or switzerland@lists.d.o or #switzerland on irc.d.o or etc... Please always bear in mind that while a sister association is usually started by Debian Developers, it does not mean that all its members are DDs. In the case of debian.ch, we have at least one member who is not officially involved with the project (i.e. he is not a Debian Developer nor Maintainer nor he maintains packages in the Debian archive). As far as I remember, there is nothing in the debian.ch status that prevents him to become part of the board. This is in contrast with how Debian works, where key positions (or call them whatever you want) can be taken by DDs only. As a final though, as far as I read constitution $9.3, we are talking here about assets, which is always an hot discussion, given the easiest and common connection volunteer means no money involved. Yes, I understand that debian.ch (and similar organisation, as Debian UK as you suggest) is a Debian sister (have an official status) AND give all proceeds to Debian Project. But, IMHO, for the specific purpose of the merchandise page (i.e. to inform users of existence of Debian merchandise vendors) the more relevant information is the one about the destination of the proceeds (as you have stated in a previous mail user could be more happy to see that proceeds fully or partially goes to Debian). The second issue is whether or not trusted organizations should be blessed as preferred merchandise dealers in the merchandise page or not. I've mixed feelings about that. My first answer used to be that they should be, for two reasons: a) users do not need to trust an external entity; b) buying from them users can help more Debian, in the sense that all the money will be used for Debian goals (hardware, sprints and the like). It could be seen as too much business-oriented, but I think that no one will complain if Trusted Organizations are the first choice available, given that Debian has full
Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
[ Adding auditor@d.o to the list of recipients, as part of the issue
here is where they'd like to maintain the list of trusted
organizations. Auditors: all context is available in #613832 ]
[ Quoted text reordered ]
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
Last but not least, at that point we would be obliged to list every Debian
sisters (or to be correct Debian Trusted Organization): as the DPL (added in
CC) said to me yesterday on IRC this kind of list already exists
(http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations) and Debian Auditors take
care of it. Adding it also in the merchandise page could turn out in
unwanted duplication of information.
BTW, I think that the Debian Trusted Organization list deserves a specific
place on the website as it's a very official page and important page.
Thanks Francesca for the Cc. It seems to me that there are two
intertwined aspects at stake. The first one is where to maintain the
list of trusted organizations as per constitution §5.1.11 and
§9.3. Maintaining that list is up to the auditors, according to the
current delegation.
I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was
easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I
believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on
www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how
important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific
per-organization sub-page might be warranted.
Yes, I understand that debian.ch (and similar organisation, as Debian UK
as you suggest) is a Debian sister (have an official status) AND give all
proceeds to Debian Project.
But, IMHO, for the specific purpose of the merchandise page (i.e. to inform
users of existence of Debian merchandise vendors) the more relevant
information
is the one about the destination of the proceeds (as you have stated in a
previous mail user could be more happy to see that proceeds fully or partially
goes to Debian).
The second issue is whether or not trusted organizations should be
blessed as preferred merchandise dealers in the merchandise page or
not. I've mixed feelings about that. My first answer used to be that
they should be, for two reasons: a) users do not need to trust an
external entity; b) buying from them users can help more Debian, in
the sense that all the money will be used for Debian goals (hardware,
sprints and the like).
More important, there could be vendors who have not an official status but who
give all proceeds to Debian (and the the vendor is a Debian organisation
would be false and the categorization not exhaustive).
On a second though however, this argument of Francesca is quite
compelling. A hypothetical shop giving all its income on Debian
merchandise to Debian fully satisfies point (b) above.
It still does not address point (a) above though and we also risk that
they only *claim* to give proceeds to Debian.
All in all, I believe that *mentioning* in the merchandise page that
entities like debian.ch are trusted organizations of the Debian project
won't hurt. It will account for more transparency on who-is-who and will
also address (a) for users who care about it. The mention can come as a
note, as a new boolean column and in the future as a link to the www.d.o
sub-page describing the trusted organization in question.
Regarding the sorting of merchandise vendors, it would be nice to sort
them according to which percentage of merchandise they give back to
Debian (higher percentage first). That would be a fair criteria, useful
to Debian finances.
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
Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 08:36:08AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: On Thursday 17 February 2011 19.17:58 Francesca Ciceri wrote: So, what you think about it? Yes, I think the patch shows the direction I had in mind. Not sure if it should say for debian.ch (and other such organisations, if they should come to be listed here) the vendor is a Debian organisation instead of gives all proceeds to Debian - debian.ch does have official status. (As Luca said: this is not to single out debian.ch. There may be other organsations with similar status that do their own merchandising -- Debian UK? -- and the same holds for them, too.) cheers -- vbi Yes, I understand that debian.ch (and similar organisation, as Debian UK as you suggest) is a Debian sister (have an official status) AND give all proceeds to Debian Project. But, IMHO, for the specific purpose of the merchandise page (i.e. to inform users of existence of Debian merchandise vendors) the more relevant information is the one about the destination of the proceeds (as you have stated in a previous mail user could be more happy to see that proceeds fully or partially goes to Debian). More important, there could be vendors who have not an official status but who give all proceeds to Debian (and the the vendor is a Debian organisation would be false and the categorization not exhaustive). Last but not least, at that point we would be obliged to list every Debian sisters (or to be correct Debian Trusted Organization): as the DPL (added in CC) said to me yesterday on IRC this kind of list already exists (http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations) and Debian Auditors take care of it. Adding it also in the merchandise page could turn out in unwanted duplication of information. BTW, I think that the Debian Trusted Organization list deserves a specific place on the website as it's a very official page and important page. Cheers, Francesca signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Hi, On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:31:17PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote: Package: www.debian.org Severity: normal Hi there! I think we need to document this somewhere and with my events@d.o hat on this is the BTS. Please keep it cc:ed when the discussion is relevant or follow-up on debian-www@: this is a website problem, as I just wrote in the announcement for the new events@d.o handling [1]. [1] Message-ID: 87tyg2g6ed@gismo.pca.it URL: http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c87tyg2g6ed.fsf%40gismo.pca.it%3e The original email I replied to is at [2]. [2] Message-ID: 201102171548.43...@fortytwo.ch URL: http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c201102171548.43246%40fortytwo.ch%3e On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:47:08 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: On Thursday 17 February 2011 14.03:22 Luca Capello wrote: [14] http://www.debian.org/misc/merchandise Hmm. Umbrellas are missing in debian.ch's entry :-) Noted, but I still need to acquaint myself with WML [3], if someone from the Webmaster team wants to quickly fix it, please go on. [3] http://www.debian.org/devel/website/ Done. The changes will be visible in few hours. More importantly: on one hand, we don't endorse any specific vendor, but otoh debian.ch isn't a commercial vendor but the money owned by it is fully under the authority of the Debian project. I wonder if this should be indicated. Perhaps for each shop add to the listing commercial vendor / commercial vendor, part of the income goes to the Debian project / part of the Debian project? Not sure what the exact terms should be, but I guess at least some people will be happy to prefer ordering stuff from places that are closely linked with Debian. Yesterday, while reviewing debian-www@ spam [4] I found out something related which should be taken care of when we are going to restructure that page [5]. No flames, please. [4] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Webmaster/SpamClean#preview [5] Message-ID: 20100526143008.ga19...@anguilla.debian.or.at URL: http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c20100526143008.GA19199%40anguilla.debian.or.at%3e (Disclaimer: Yes, I *am* on the debian.ch board.) Again, no flames, please. That being said, it does not matter who is on the board and who is not and for those who do not know that already, I am the current debian.ch president. Yes, debian.ch *is* a special case, no matter what other people say. It is a special case exactly as any other *official* Debian sister association. Yes, I agree that we need a special case for these sister association, but *only* if, as Adrian already wrote in his reply, the money that they own is under the authority of the Debian project. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca I'm not completely sure to have understand your request. If you're asking for a further entry for vendors, with a statement of which part of the income goes to Debian (and/or if a part of the income goes to Debian), IMO we can add it. In that case, my patch would be something like the attached ones (for now I've added data about proceeds only for debian.ch - in the patch - if we'll all agree on it I'll collect data also about others vendors). Note that as I'm not a native english speaker the statements added in the patch need a proofread. So, what you think about it? Cheers, Francesca Index: merchandise.def === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/misc/merchandise.def,v retrieving revision 1.41 diff -u -u -r1.41 merchandise.def --- merchandise.def 17 Feb 2011 16:18:44 - 1.41 +++ merchandise.def 17 Feb 2011 18:05:51 - @@ -65,3 +65,25 @@ strongproducts:/strong %attributes br /define-tag + +define-tag their_proceeds\ + strongproceeds:/strong %attributes + br / +/define-tag + +define-tag proceeds whitespace=delete + gettext domain=othersProceeds/gettext +/define-tag + +define-tag noncommercial whitespace=delete + gettext domain=othersthe vendor gives all proceeds to Debian/gettext +/define-tag + +define-tag mid-commercial whitespace=delete + gettext domain=othersthe vendor gives part of the proceeds to Debian/gettext +/define-tag + +define-tag commercial whitespace=delete + gettext domain=othersthe vendor doesn't give any part of the proceeds to Debian/gettext +/define-tag + Index: merchandise.data === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/misc/merchandise.data,v retrieving revision 1.45 diff -u -u -r1.45 merchandise.data --- merchandise.data17 Feb 2011 16:18:43 - 1.45 +++ merchandise.data17 Feb 2011 18:06:58 - @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ vendor debian.ch URL http://www.debian.ch/merchandise/; their_products t-shirts, stickers, umbrellas + their_proceeds noncommercial /mercentry # Disabled, no longer operating signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
On Thursday 17 February 2011 19.17:58 Francesca Ciceri wrote: So, what you think about it? Yes, I think the patch shows the direction I had in mind. Not sure if it should say for debian.ch (and other such organisations, if they should come to be listed here) the vendor is a Debian organisation instead of gives all proceeds to Debian - debian.ch does have official status. (As Luca said: this is not to single out debian.ch. There may be other organsations with similar status that do their own merchandising -- Debian UK? -- and the same holds for them, too.) cheers -- vbi -- How to overclock the board to the attachment from Windows? You should telnet from the floppy disk and from the tools menu inside Netscape you either never have to log from the POP3 miditower, or can't debug a clock of a OpenGL file of a software of a BIOS in order to explore the editor. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
