Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Hi Ole, Thanks for your reply. On 10/4/19 8:18 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > Thomas Goirand writes: >> On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to >>> maintain Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send >>> a patch to the BTS. >> >> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he >> wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point? s/slenderizes/advertises/ Sorry for the typo, I'm not sure how my spell-checker did that ... :) > No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging > repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow > preferred by the maintainer. So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more than using Salsa? > You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you > even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons > why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason > for the repository. I'm just trying to understand here... Apart from the "close to upstream" bit, what would be the reasons? > And, BTW, sometimes contributing to a Debian package requires > communication with upstream (creating a bug report or discussing a > patch); in this case you cannot avoid the use of non-free services > anyway, since you are then bound to their choice of services. This is bound to the choice of each package maintainer, and has nothing to do with the rules for packaging within Debian. In other words: what you are discussing is IMO off-topic. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: BSP Reimbursements
On 2019-10-05 5:12 a.m., Martin Michlmayr wrote: [...] My only concern with the automatic $100 is the workload it may cause for TOs, but this might not be a huge problem since a) many people won't bother submitting a claim since it's not worth their time (automatically selecting those who really need/want it) and b) so far there haven't been that many requests. (Although you can argue the latter is because it wasn't documented/publicised properly.) Of course, it's different if we're talking about bigger amounts, but for that we have a sprint/mini-debconf process anyway. Let's just have an automatic $100 and keep the bureaucracy to a minimum. +1, please. -- tiago
Re: Expense Rules for Mini-DebConfs
Since we're on the topic of travel expenses. * Didier 'OdyX' Raboud [2019-10-03 13:42]: > I realize I had not read https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/HowTo recently; my > bad. It has: > > Debian, within the limit of available resources, tries hard to cover travel > > and accommodation costs for those who have no other means to cover the > > costs. Participating in developer sprints should be no personal financial > > burden to any of the participants. Usually, participants are expected to > > cover food costs by themselves, although exceptions might be considered. ^ The food rule has been applied very inconsistently in recent years. Back in the Zack days, Debian didn't cover food at all (I think stemming from Zack's academic background where you're lucky to get anything at all), but in recent years this has been different (but inconsistent). I don't get the rule for not paying for food: 1) You have to eat when travelling and it will be more expensive than when you can cook at home (and especially if you travel to a higher cost location). 2) Food (and some would say beer) is a social thing and isn't one goal of the sprints to promote social interaction and cohesiveness? -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: BSP Reimbursements
* Sam Hartman [2019-10-02 10:43]: > If that ends up being the case I'm happy with some sort of automatic > approval process for DDs attending BSPs (and easy approval for other > contributors when that makes sense). I might be wrong here but my understanding of the $100 for attending BSPs that existed in the past is that it was automatic. All this talk about who should handle approvals (DPL or organizers) and putting together a budget seems way overkill to me. We're talking about $100 per person. The whole idea was to make this a painless process. i.e. just send a request to a TO and they will process it. No involvement of the DPL or organizer needed. I recently read something about corporate life where someone said you need X approvals to spend $1000 but nobody asks if you invite 15 people to a one hour meeting which will easily cost $1000. It sounds like we're making the same mistake here. For $100, do we really need a long approval process? My only concern with the automatic $100 is the workload it may cause for TOs, but this might not be a huge problem since a) many people won't bother submitting a claim since it's not worth their time (automatically selecting those who really need/want it) and b) so far there haven't been that many requests. (Although you can argue the latter is because it wasn't documented/publicised properly.) Of course, it's different if we're talking about bigger amounts, but for that we have a sprint/mini-debconf process anyway. Let's just have an automatic $100 and keep the bureaucracy to a minimum. (Not speaking for the treasurer team, for SPI or anyone else.) -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: BSP Reimbursements
On 2019-10-02 at 10:43:37 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > TL;DR: Do we want BSP organizers to take on the responsibility of > batching together travel reimbursement requests. > [...] > Asking BSP organizers to help with this is great from the DPL side. > The only concern is if it pushes the effort involved in organizing a > BSP up too much so people don't want to do it. I've organized a low-effort event (Snow Camp) that has been considered similar to a BSP for travel refund reasons. The idea behind that kind of event is to keep organization tasks to a minimum: e.g. registration is mostly delegated to the hostel / hotel the event happens in, so that it is feasible to have a tiny organizing team of one-two people. If I had to also take care of travel reimbursement requests I wouldn't do it: it's something that I would need to learn anew every year, and then my brain would consider it a high stressful task with hints of judging people, and that's not something I'm ready to volunteer to. On the other hand, afaik the Sun Camp didn't have these reimbursements, and for the first Snow Camp they were only available / announced late, when most people had already registered, so I think that the event can happen anyway even without them. I'm also not sure that this kind of event is still considered a good idea from a Debian-wide perspective, so maybe they wouldn't qualify anymore anyway, and this is all moot. -- Elena ``of Valhalla''
