Re: Confusing our users - who is supporting LTS?
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security > > team. And instead of saying that Jessie was supported by the LTS > > team, we would say supported by Freexian. > > I would object to that, on the grounds that even though Freexian is > currently the only company paying people to do LTS support, we should > not encourage the idea that they have a monopoly on doing that. I agree that more than one consultancy should/could provide resources for LTS. I find it inappropriate that that we (Debian) publicize solicitation of donations to Freexian on debian.org websites [1] and, further, that we the advertise their 'Extended LTS' commercial offering [2]. [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Funding [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Extended > For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that Freexian is doing a > bad job, or that they should be replaced, or anything of the sorts. Nor am I, but I do not find the lack of distinction between Debian and Freexian to be appropriate. One way is for the funding for Debian LTS to flow through Debian's Trusted Organizations, complete with the restrictions that might come with that. Another way is for Debian websites to not solicit for donations or to advertise for their commercial offering (my preference). Luca -- Luca Filipozzi
Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Do you have some concrete suggestions? Decrease the separation by moving the funds management into Debian proper (via a TO like SPI) and move to a bounty model for working on LTS. Make sure we're transparent with our language regarding Debian being produced by volunteers (eg: "The Debian Project consists of volunteers, and our products are developed entirely by volunteers." on [1]) by commenting on how bounties are available (or something). Consider making LTS management a delegated team. OR Increase the separation by removing the fundraising statements / links from the LTS pages previously mentioned, making Freexian just another consultancy listed on the consultancy pages. None of this is meant to diminish or tarnish the very significant contribution that you or Freexian are making, which are both extensive and impressive. I'm seeking greater definition of the role and the language used. [1]: https://www.debian.org/devel/join/ -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian
Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 02:41:30PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > That's why I have been advocating for a change of the DMUP. It has been used > far too often to annoy persons who are being paid (or who are accepting > donations) to work on Debian instead of causing real troubles that could > annoy sponsors or create problems to the DSA team. I think that the distinction between Debian LTS and Freexian is too indefinite. https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/ makes it appear that LTS is an official Debian effort. However, https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Funding directs those interested in providing funding in support LTS to do so through Freexian rather than through Software in the Public Interest. Freexian isn't a TO and the funds it collects aren't subject to the same disbursement conditions (approval by DPL; execution by SPI Treasurer; review by Debian Auditor) as funds collected by Debian. Consequently, I find the use of Debian resources such as the advertising above and/or the use of Debian machines as being problematic. Make the distinction clearer, and the problem goes away. > I have also been looking at ways to bring the "LTS funding" closer to Debian > and to find a way to join all this in the Debian Partner program but we don't > have many volunteers interested in this work. We discussed it a bit last year > during Debconf with Luca Filippozi, Martin Krafft and Neil McGovern, but this > never went further. And I obviously don't want to be leading this project due > to the clear conflict of interest that I would have... I'm interested in working on Debian Partners but not if it includes Debian LTS fundraising as currently structured: either Debian LTS fundraising falls under the same umbrella as other Debian fundraising (and subject to the same rules, including that funds not be used for reimbursing effort, potentially) or it is separate and branded as a Freexian service. I don't begrudge people making a living supporting Debian. I do mind the indistinction between Debian LTS and Freexian. It's situations like these that cause organizations to have things like DMUP. (You also have a clear conflict of interest in arguing for changes to the DMUP. That said, periodic re-examination of policies and procedures is healthy for organizations.) (The majority of Debian equipment is still hosted by post-secondary institutions where commercial activity using university resources is frowned upon.) -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian
