Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
This point makes an awful lot of sense. Is it actually against an official policy to consider (not accept, mind you, since it was not actually accepted) an anonymous donation with strings attached? While it may seem that certain things are common sense we really cannot hold people to unstated policies for rather obvious reasons. Imagine if packaging was approached in such a way! The activity that seems more concerning to me is the allegedly purposeful misrepresentation of the character of the donations by DebConf personnel . While I can't find anything in the Debian Constitution explicitly stating that official personnel must not lie about their activities, I think we can all agree on that one. It would be nice if the consequences of such an action had already been spelled out before now. I'm not suggesting we figure out these questions in this thread. It might be important to take up a separate discussion spelling out a policy for officials. They really should understand, in advance, their obligations and have a clearly spelled out reference to guide their activities. - Russ Allbery wrote: Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done differently. Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offering of the donation (or loan) in the first place. I think that's a reasonable assumption. What I would then expect is for the team to discuss the offer (since no decision is ever going to be made out of hand), and then reject the offer as being insufficiently transparent and posing other problems with oversight and possible undue influence. That seems to be exactly what happened. So unless I'm missing something, the reaction indicated seems to be well done, thank you for handling this ethically and professionally. I'm not inclined to blame people for temporarily discussing something, or even temporarily using it as an argument, before thinking it through further. Asking people to not do that seems to be an impossibly high standard to which to hold people. One of the ways that high-functioning groups develop and maintain ethical standards is to discuss ethical quandries in public. I'm not seeing any evidence on this thread (and, indeed, directly contrary assertions from people I think we all have reason to trust) that the withdrawn offer had any material effect on the choice of venue. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8253955.98481355412499097.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Hi, On Montag, 3. Dezember 2012, Ian Jackson wrote: The anonymous donations we got offered were rejected (by us) Why do you use scare quotes ? for two reasons: a.) because they are not anonymous to me and b.) because I'm not as fluent in english writing as others. I'm sorry to keep making trouble, but strings-attached offers of substantial amounts of money from anonymous donors are a serious matter. Even if the decision for Debconf13 is already finalised, we need to have transparency. and you seriously think, the only way to achieve transparency are some ad-hoc mails to -project? Organizing DebConf has been done transparently and in the open since years, this is nothing new to us. (And yet still, there are aspects of organizing a conference which cannot be done as open as one wishes (mostly due to time constraints)). Your statement that these offers were rejected by the Debconf team doesn't seem consistent with the story I heard which is I'm sorry that your sources of stories are not correct all the time. (Actual thats quite normal with stories though. Ask 2 people about 1 story and you get 3 replies :) (as far as I can make out) that the donors got cold feet and downgraded their offer from a donation to a loan, which latter obviously wasn't useful to Debconf. See for example Philipp Hug's email: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html Philipp says it's now clear that they only wanted to provide DebConf with liquidity, which suggests that at some earlier point this wasn't clear and the suggestion appeared to be a donation. The donors offer was a mix of load and donation (and indeed not fully thought to the end) and they withdraw it basically at the same time we rejected it. And, we choose to reject their offer before we had the 2nd meeting confirming Le Camp. (And when we decided for the 1st time to go to Le Camp, this offer wasnt on the table.) So, despite contrary claims (from someone who claims to be able to read my mind..) this anonymous load/donation was never a factor when deciding about the best possible venue for DebConf13. Reality is sometimes more complicated than stories tell. Please would you also answer the rest of my questions. Particularly critical are: 6. Were the proposed donors in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf ? no 3. Were any conditions attached ? If so what were the conditions ? It has been alleged that the conditions attached were that we hold DC13 at Le Camp. Again, would you please confirm or deny. yes they were attached to Le Camp. I dont see this particularily good or bad, as every year we have sponsors who donate because its in their country and we also do activly seek for local sponsors for a venue - before and after a venue has decided. I think the whole project is entitled to full and frank answers to all of my questions. I disagree (at least about anyone having the right to come along at any time and asking whatever silly question based on some stories. Those doing DebConf organisation are volunteers and can and must decide on their own how to spend their time best. And yes these volunteers need to work within the project, but that doesnt mean every question has to be answered immediatly). But please, lets not have *this* discussion *now* *also*. There will still be plenty of time for this - eg we do have regular DebConf/Debian workshops at DebConf. cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201212041339.43738.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Moray Allan writes (Re: Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): Since your questions remain unanswered, I just want to say as one of the DebConf Chairs that I think the questions are valid, but I personally don't know any details about this that would help clear them up. Thanks very much for your reply. It is disturbing that you don't have the details. It suggests that not all of the global team have been kept fully informed. Certainly at the time many people within the DebConf team were uncomfortable that this anonymous donation was used to argue that we didn't need to worry about the high prices at Le Camp, and to argue that we should definitely choose Le Camp since this money was only available if we went there. I find this unacceptable. I think we should be told who it was that was arguing that we should choose Le Camp for that reason. How does the timing of these arguments, and of the donation appearing and then disappearing, relate to the timing of the final decision about DC13 venue ? As has been stated already in this thread, after some questioning it subsequently turned out that it wasn't really a donation anyway, but a loan with the intention of providing liquidity at an early stage, and the DebConf budget team decided it was not useful to accept the offer since alternative and less mysterious liquidity sources were available. Quite! Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20669.65065.604088.434...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Holger Levsen writes (Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): On Montag, 3. Dezember 2012, Ian Jackson wrote: I'm sorry to keep making trouble, but strings-attached offers of substantial amounts of money from anonymous donors are a serious matter. Even if the decision for Debconf13 is already finalised, we need to have transparency. and you seriously think, the only way to achieve transparency are some ad-hoc mails to -project? [...] Thanks for the answers you have given. When a serious issue arises I think it's right to discuss it in a public and open place. -project is I think the right place. It has been alleged that the conditions attached were that we hold DC13 at Le Camp. Again, would you please confirm or deny. yes they were attached to Le Camp. I dont see this particularily good or bad, as every year we have sponsors who donate because its in their country and we also do activly seek for local sponsors for a venue - before and after a venue has decided. I don't think anonymous donations with strings attached are acceptable. If our decisionmaking is being influenced by strings-attached donations, the very minimum is that we should know who is pulling the strings. I think the whole project is entitled to full and frank answers to all of my questions. I disagree (at least about anyone having the right to come along at any time and asking whatever silly question based on some stories. The right thing to do with rumours is to quash them, not to complain about people who ask questions. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20669.65367.523750.618...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Jose Luis Rivas writes (Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): I really thought people working on a project like Debian would understand the meaning of the anonymous word. Then we blame government and politicians. I'm sorry, I don't follow your point. When politicians accept anonymous loans/donations we rightly criticise them. When campaigning organisations accept anonymous strings-attached donations we worry that their independence is compromised. This is really annoying. Who would be up to give anonymous donations if they're not up to be anonymous? And anonymous should be it too for the people receiving it, BTW. There are ways. At the very least any anonymous donation should be unconditional. Everyone who is involved with dealing with such a proposal (which definitely includes everyone on the Debconf global and local teams and the sponsorship team) should know this, and should make it clear to any donor. According to Moray this proposed strings-attached donation was used as an argument by some members of the Debconf team in favour of making the decision favoured by the donor. That is wholly unacceptable. It amounts exactly to the donors buying influence. The fact that the money didn't change hands in the end doesn't help very much if at all (and indeed in some ways it makes it worse - if we're going to be bribed we should at least get to keep the money!) Under these circumstances claims that the proposal evaporated before the final decision was made are less than reassuring. Committee deliberations of this kind are not so clear cut - for example a team member who had been influenced by this donation and committed to a particular point of view may find it difficult to change their position later. It will be difficult to separate out the influence that such a proposal had. And what's if they're narcos giving out money to Debian? Well, it is ANONYMOUS. If you guys are not OK with it then don't accept any kind of anonymous donations and make a law about it (a-la Debian way). I would have hoped that not accepting anonymous string-attached donations is a basic matter of ethics that everyone would understand and follow. These goings-on help me understand why my employer makes me sit through tedious and absurd compliance training which tells us not to give or accept bribes and not to bully people - matters which I again would have hoped everyone would understand. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20670.4901.582445.553...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: According to Moray this proposed strings-attached donation was used as an argument by some members of the Debconf team in favour of making the decision favoured by the donor. That is wholly unacceptable. It amounts exactly to the donors buying influence. The fact that the money didn't change hands in the end doesn't help very much if at all (and indeed in some ways it makes it worse - if we're going to be bribed we should at least get to keep the money!) The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done differently. Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offering of the donation (or loan) in the first place. I think that's a reasonable assumption. What I would then expect is for the team to discuss the offer (since no decision is ever going to be made out of hand), and then reject the offer as being insufficiently transparent and posing other problems with oversight and possible undue influence. That seems to be exactly what happened. So unless I'm missing something, the reaction indicated seems to be well done, thank you for handling this ethically and professionally. I'm not inclined to blame people for temporarily discussing something, or even temporarily using it as an argument, before thinking it through further. Asking people to not do that seems to be an impossibly high standard to which to hold people. One of the ways that high-functioning groups develop and maintain ethical standards is to discuss ethical quandries in public. I'm not seeing any evidence on this thread (and, indeed, directly contrary assertions from people I think we all have reason to trust) that the withdrawn offer had any material effect on the choice of venue. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87txs1iyrf@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 04/12/12 17:10, Russ Allbery wrote: Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: According to Moray this proposed strings-attached donation was used as an argument by some members of the Debconf team in favour of making the decision favoured by the donor. That is wholly unacceptable. It amounts exactly to the donors buying influence. The fact that the money didn't change hands in the end doesn't help very much if at all (and indeed in some ways it makes it worse - if we're going to be bribed we should at least get to keep the money!) The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done differently. Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offering of the donation (or loan) in the first place. I think that's a reasonable assumption. What I would then expect is for the team to discuss the offer (since no decision is ever going to be made out of hand), and then reject the offer as being insufficiently transparent and posing other problems with oversight and possible undue influence. That seems to be exactly what happened. So unless I'm missing something, the reaction indicated seems to be well done, thank you for handling this ethically and professionally. I'm not inclined to blame people for temporarily discussing something, or even temporarily using it as an argument, before thinking it through further. Asking people to not do that seems to be an impossibly high standard to which to hold people. One of the ways that high-functioning groups develop and maintain ethical standards is to discuss ethical quandries in public. I'm not seeing any evidence on this thread (and, indeed, directly contrary assertions from people I think we all have reason to trust) that the withdrawn offer had any material effect on the choice of venue. Not quite... What is now clear a) Holger, a DebConf chair, was concerned about Le Camp's budget on 25 October (referring to it as GourmetConf) and unwilling to support it http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121025.200948.bca7a335.en.html 100k for food is just insane. We are neither GourmetConf (*) nor should we. b) 26 October, Holger visits Interlaken, and 27+28, he visits Le Camp c) on 28 October, Holger reports via IRC (and subsequently confirms in email) that he has changed his views about Le Camp and that the money is one of the factors that changed his mind http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121029.132401.59bef7b6.en.html we already have 46k secured for Le Camp, quite very probably 51k. Thats way more then ever. (I do actually miss some applause here.) d) as confirmed in Holger's email today, they withdraw it basically at the same time we rejected it - this implies the sponsor/lender independently came to the conclusion not to offer the money, but only after Holger's support for Le Camp had been won Is it just co-incidence that the sponsor decided to withdraw the money? Or was it someone involved in or monitoring our decision making processes? On 04/12/12 13:39, Holger Levsen wrote: On Montag, 3. Dezember 2012, Ian Jackson wrote: 6. Were the proposed donors in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf ? no Today, Holger has told us that sponsors/lenders were not in positions of authority or governance (in the past tense). Ian's complete question specified: Examples of people in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf include the DPL, the DPL helpers tasked with Debconf-related tasks, people involved with Debconf accounting on behalf of SPI or FFIS, and of course members of the Debconf global or local teams. In a reply to Holger's email on 31 October, Richard mentioned: they want it back before _before_ travel sponsorship... so even if we decide to use the money to fill a deficit, it can't be used for travel sponsorship. http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121031.082232.2c9c4f00.en.html which also suggests the sponsors/lenders know a little bit more than the average person about the way a DebConf budget works. I've been asked not to repeat things from IRC into a publicly archived list, so as much as I feel Holger's answer is inaccurate, I'm not going to copy and paste those things from IRC right now. To summarise the impression I have though, it has been widely speculated on #debconf-team in late October that this money was coming from members of the local team or a family business or some other closely connected business. In my mind, if somebody (or their family member) is in an executive role in such a related business, then it is no different than if the money was in their personal control, and the question should be answered again. So, I would really like to hear Holger (or even better, the anonymous sponsor themself) to give a thorough response about whether the sponsor was so closely connected with the team, regardless of whether the sponsor is in an official delegate of the DPL As a
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes: a) Holger, a DebConf chair, was concerned about Le Camp's budget on 25 October (referring to it as GourmetConf) and unwilling to support it http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121025.200948.bca7a335.en.html 100k for food is just insane. We are neither GourmetConf (*) nor should we. b) 26 October, Holger visits Interlaken, and 27+28, he visits Le Camp c) on 28 October, Holger reports via IRC (and subsequently confirms in email) that he has changed his views about Le Camp and that the money is one of the factors that changed his mind http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121029.132401.59bef7b6.en.html we already have 46k secured for Le Camp, quite very probably 51k. Thats way more then ever. (I do actually miss some applause here.) This message doesn't say that money was part of what changed his mind, nor does it say that this amount of money is related to the donation/loan that we're discussing in this thread. Maybe this is all obvious with additional context, but at least from what's mentioned on this thread, you aren't connecting the dots. d) as confirmed in Holger's email today, they withdraw it basically at the same time we rejected it - this implies the sponsor/lender independently came to the conclusion not to offer the money, but only after Holger's support for Le Camp had been won It's quite common for donations with ethical problems to be withdrawn before or simultaneous with being rejected. The normal way that happens is that subsequent discussion uncovers the ethical problems, and neither the organization nor the doner wants to proceed for the same reasons. This is all very typical for volunteer non-profits; there is nothing inherently suspicious about that sort of event. Is it just co-incidence that the sponsor decided to withdraw the money? Or was it someone involved in or monitoring our decision making processes? Good heavens, I hope that wouldn't be necessary! If there were ethical problems with a donation, surely those problems would be expressed directly to the doner! Today, Holger has told us that sponsors/lenders were not in positions of authority or governance (in the past tense). Ian's complete question specified: Examples of people in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf include the DPL, the DPL helpers tasked with Debconf-related tasks, people involved with Debconf accounting on behalf of SPI or FFIS, and of course members of the Debconf global or local teams. In a reply to Holger's email on 31 October, Richard mentioned: they want it back before _before_ travel sponsorship... so even if we decide to use the money to fill a deficit, it can't be used for travel sponsorship. http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121031.082232.2c9c4f00.en.html which also suggests the sponsors/lenders know a little bit more than the average person about the way a DebConf budget works. This all seems like quite a conspiracy theory. *I* know enough about how the DebConf budget works to make such a statement, and I've never been involved in organizing DebConf at all and have only attended two of them. I've been asked not to repeat things from IRC into a publicly archived list, so as much as I feel Holger's answer is inaccurate, I'm not going to copy and paste those things from IRC right now. To summarise the impression I have though, it has been widely speculated on #debconf-team in late October that this money was coming from members of the local team or a family business or some other closely connected business. In my mind, if somebody (or their family member) is in an executive role in such a related business, then it is no different than if the money was in their personal control, and the question should be answered again. So, I would really like to hear Holger (or even better, the anonymous sponsor themself) to give a thorough response about whether the sponsor was so closely connected with the team, regardless of whether the sponsor is in an official delegate of the DPL The key point here is that *the donation didn't proceed*. So I'm having a hard time seeing any motivation for an in-depth inquest into the exact details of a donation that was not accepted. There were indeed problems with it, so it didn't go forward. That's the desired outcome! The rest of this seems to be speculation that a donation that never actually happened still managed to exert so much influence over the DebConf site selection team as to change the results of the process. That's an extraordinary claim. I would want to see some extraordinary evidence in order to entertain it. As a substitute, if the sponsor is a private individual who wants to remain private, I would personally be happy for this to be documented by some independent third party who will then answer Ian's question for the public benefit. Asking that rejected donations be monitored to
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 04/12/12 18:02, Russ Allbery wrote: Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes: a) Holger, a DebConf chair, was concerned about Le Camp's budget on 25 October (referring to it as GourmetConf) and unwilling to support it http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121025.200948.bca7a335.en.html 100k for food is just insane. We are neither GourmetConf (*) nor should we. b) 26 October, Holger visits Interlaken, and 27+28, he visits Le Camp c) on 28 October, Holger reports via IRC (and subsequently confirms in email) that he has changed his views about Le Camp and that the money is one of the factors that changed his mind http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121029.132401.59bef7b6.en.html we already have 46k secured for Le Camp, quite very probably 51k. Thats way more then ever. (I do actually miss some applause here.) This message doesn't say that money was part of what changed his mind, nor does it say that this amount of money is related to the donation/loan that we're discussing in this thread. Maybe this is all obvious with additional context, but at least from what's mentioned on this thread, you aren't connecting the dots. More context appeared earlier in this thread http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121130.200617.d5c5db4b.en.html e.g. discussions taking place on IRC at an unlogged meeting on 28 October Today, Holger has told us that sponsors/lenders were not in positions of authority or governance (in the past tense). Ian's complete question specified: Examples of people in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf include the DPL, the DPL helpers tasked with Debconf-related tasks, people involved with Debconf accounting on behalf of SPI or FFIS, and of course members of the Debconf global or local teams. In a reply to Holger's email on 31 October, Richard mentioned: they want it back before _before_ travel sponsorship... so even if we decide to use the money to fill a deficit, it can't be used for travel sponsorship. http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121031.082232.2c9c4f00.en.html which also suggests the sponsors/lenders know a little bit more than the average person about the way a DebConf budget works. This all seems like quite a conspiracy theory. *I* know enough about how the DebConf budget works to make such a statement, and I've never been involved in organizing DebConf at all and have only attended two of them. I suspect conspiracy is too strong a word, and while I'm not suggesting that here, such things do happen from time to time, and having information disclosed more transparently allows everybody to rule out the possibility of any conspiracy and quash all the rumors. I've been asked not to repeat things from IRC into a publicly archived list, so as much as I feel Holger's answer is inaccurate, I'm not going to copy and paste those things from IRC right now. To summarise the impression I have though, it has been widely speculated on #debconf-team in late October that this money was coming from members of the local team or a family business or some other closely connected business. In my mind, if somebody (or their family member) is in an executive role in such a related business, then it is no different than if the money was in their personal control, and the question should be answered again. So, I would really like to hear Holger (or even better, the anonymous sponsor themself) to give a thorough response about whether the sponsor was so closely connected with the team, regardless of whether the sponsor is in an official delegate of the DPL The key point here is that *the donation didn't proceed*. So I'm having a hard time seeing any motivation for an in-depth inquest into the exact details of a donation that was not accepted. There were indeed problems with it, so it didn't go forward. That's the desired outcome! Effectively the carrot was dangled before the horses at the moment when people wanted the horses to run. Money was never paid/The horses never got to eat their carrot, and maybe they would have run in the same direction anyway. Maybe it was even the best direction that the horses could have possibly run with or without a carrot to tempt them. From the email just sent by Darst, the final line concludes that whether or not this carrot influenced the venue decision is debatable I certainly feel the appearance of this offer the day after visiting Interlaken undermined all the effort I put in to provide an alternative venue for objective comparison. However, I would agree that our democratic and distributed structure stopped this issue in it's tracks. Holger did the right thing referring it to Philipp (the treasurer of the local debconf committee) to analyse. Philipp appears to have quickly recognised the faults with the issue. Philipp sent an email informing people that something had happened and that it had been stopped in it's
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Russ Allbery writes (Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done differently. This is a reasonable question. Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offering of the donation (or loan) in the first place. I think that's a reasonable assumption. What I would then expect is for the team to discuss the offer (since no decision is ever going to be made out of hand), and then reject the offer as being insufficiently transparent and posing other problems with oversight and possible undue influence. Indeed. That seems to be exactly what happened. No. My reading of Moray's message is that some members of the Debconf teams used the existence of the donation as an argument in favour of selecting Le Camp as the site. I'm not seeing any evidence on this thread (and, indeed, directly contrary assertions from people I think we all have reason to trust) that the withdrawn offer had any material effect on the choice of venue. Moray writes: Certainly at the time many people within the DebConf team were uncomfortable that this anonymous donation was used to argue that we didn't need to worry about the high prices at Le Camp, and to argue that we should definitely choose Le Camp since this money was only available if we went there. I read Moray's used to argue as referring to arguments from people within Debian or Debconf. Obviously it would be entirely inappropriate for anyone within Debian or Debconf's decisionmaking structures to argue that we should make a particular decision because an anonymous donor makes it a condition that we do so. In http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121029.132401.59bef7b6.en.html Holger uses the 46k secured for Le Camp as an argument in favour of Le Camp as a venue. This can surely only refer to conditional donations and AIUI this includes the anonymous donation. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20670.16196.512150.109...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:21:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Russ Allbery writes (Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done differently. This is a reasonable question. Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offering of the donation (or loan) in the first place. I think that's a reasonable assumption. What I would then expect is for the team to discuss the offer (since no decision is ever going to be made out of hand), and then reject the offer as being insufficiently transparent and posing other problems with oversight and possible undue influence. Indeed. That seems to be exactly what happened. No. My reading of Moray's message is that some members of the Debconf teams used the existence of the donation as an argument in favour of selecting Le Camp as the site. I'm not seeing any evidence on this thread (and, indeed, directly contrary assertions from people I think we all have reason to trust) that the withdrawn offer had any material effect on the choice of venue. Moray writes: Certainly at the time many people within the DebConf team were uncomfortable that this anonymous donation was used to argue that we didn't need to worry about the high prices at Le Camp, and to argue that we should definitely choose Le Camp since this money was only available if we went there. I read Moray's used to argue as referring to arguments from people within Debian or Debconf. Obviously it would be entirely inappropriate for anyone within Debian or Debconf's decisionmaking structures to argue that we should make a particular decision because an anonymous donor makes it a condition that we do so. In http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121029.132401.59bef7b6.en.html Holger uses the 46k secured for Le Camp as an argument in favour of Le Camp as a venue. This can surely only refer to conditional donations and AIUI this includes the anonymous donation. Look, I'm super into this stuff (really), so much so that my day job is in government transparency. I care a lot about money's role in politics, and this isn't too different. Let's stop this thread, this horse is very (VERY) dead. I feel like I'm reading a really tragic version of ancient aliens, with all these conjectures and question marks. Let's set up guidelines on what sort of donations we should accept and be done with it. Personally, I think anything over 250 USD should never be anonymous. We can bikeshead that mess later. Let's lay off and let the team in charge do their job. No rules were broken this time. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20670.16196.512150.109...@chiark.greenend.org.uk Seriously, /thread, please. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Russ Allbery writes: That seems to be exactly what happened. No. My reading of Moray's message is that some members of the Debconf teams used the existence of the donation as an argument in favour of selecting Le Camp as the site. At least for some period of time, assuming that the 46K refers to this donation, I can see where you're seeing that. However, Holger has already said directly that this was not conclusive and has stated a number of other reasons for favoring Le Camp, which seems like the important part. Moray writes: Certainly at the time many people within the DebConf team were uncomfortable that this anonymous donation was used to argue that we didn't need to worry about the high prices at Le Camp, and to argue that we should definitely choose Le Camp since this money was only available if we went there. I read Moray's used to argue as referring to arguments from people within Debian or Debconf. Obviously it would be entirely inappropriate for anyone within Debian or Debconf's decisionmaking structures to argue that we should make a particular decision because an anonymous donor makes it a condition that we do so. Which is why, when the situation became clear, everyone stopped, no? What remedy or action are you looking for here? I don't think breaking the anonymity of a donation that never happened really makes sense. Are you looking for site selection to be re-opened? Further reassurance that the selection of the site was not influenced by the donation that didn't happen? I guess I'm still not seeing the correctable impropriety. I understand that you're unhappy that this donation was ever used as an argument, but to me that seems like a solved problem going forward, and we've already had some reassurance that the site selection decision was not influenced by that donation even though it temporarily surfaced as an argument in favor of Le Camp. Do you want more reassurance on that score? Given the fallout and the understanding shared among the DebConf committee expressed here, it seems very likely to me that people will be even more sensitive about this sort of donation in the future. I guess the other possibility is that people might be concerned someone involved in governance arranged this whole thing in a deliberately manipulative way and has not been uncovered, and therefore may continue to do so in the future. Certainly, that would prompt a high level of concern. But I'm not really seeing signs of that in the discussion so far. Also, at least from the outside, that strikes me as much less plausible than most alternative explanations. It would require assuming a lot of malice in a situation that can be adequately explained by well-intentioned but misguided offers by excited people. I guess where I'm coming from here is that at some point one has to trust the process. I've been in governance situations with conflicts of interest before, and they're very hard to avoid entirely. That's *why* there's a process so that there are lots of checks and balances along the way. Please note: as difficult as this sort of discussion is, I actually agree with Ian that this sort of discussion is valuable and helps keep a volunteer organization healthy. Ethics are hard. They're tricky and complicated, and they can always, *always*, be handled better. There's no perfect way of handling situations, and always possible improvements, and the way that one works out those improvements is through public discussion. Having this sort of public discussion of one's decisions is really painful, since it can feel personal and feel like an attack on one's honor, but I really don't think it is. Rather, it's an acknowledgement that this stuff is really hard, and lots of brains together are sometimes required to find the best ways of handling various situations, particularly unprecedented ones. That said, the flipside of that observation is that it's almost impossible to achieve a perfect decision-making process. Every process is going to have some flaws in retrospect, but that doesn't mean the process is invalid. That's exactly why it's so important to have a process with a variety of steps that tend to fail independently. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5hdfyl4@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Le mardi 04 décembre 2012 à 15:02 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : If these people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh-Morpork_Assassins%27_Guild would use Debian it is perfectl in line with our social contract. Thus I can't see a reason why they should not sponsor DebConf. There’s a huge difference between letting anyone using our software and accepting money from anyone. “The hand that gives is over the hand that receives.” So far for trying to make something out of your troll posting and I do not really want to feed you but it would be great if you would start sticking to a single relevant mailing list rather than also spoiling debian-project. These sponsorship arrangements affect the project as a whole, and are definitely relevant to the project as a whole. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1354647250.9466.3.camel@tomoe
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:42:47AM -0800]: (... big snip ...) What remedy or action are you looking for here? I don't think breaking the anonymity of a donation that never happened really makes sense. Are you looking for site selection to be re-opened? Further reassurance that the selection of the site was not influenced by the donation that didn't happen? Right now, this is only bringing in unneeded (and much to the contrary, much counterproductive) noise in a very hard to reach agreement that AIUI had mostly been reached by the people involved. Yes, we might have to come to this general discussion later on. As Paul said, we might have to set guidelines on maximum anonymous amounts later on — I guess they had not been set because we just didn't envision this possibility. We might now have to discuss whether or not we accept pressure (and how much of it) from green little men coming out from flying saucers demanding us to take them to our leader, just because there is a possibility that in the future we might experience an alien invasion during DebConf, and then people will start bickering on why did we choose DebConf to be held at an alien landing site. This was an unforseen event, that was dealt with the best way we could (note that by we I mean the group — I keep out every year of the sponsor team, as I know it's not where my energies are most effective). The Huge Anonymous Donation^WLoan didn't take place. Can further details be made available? I have no idea. But having this discussion right now is really harming. Not only us as a project, but the mental health of the people most involved in the bid and the organization, that have invested long time in it. You are all welcome to be a part of the DebConf team, but please, work in it for a while before making life miserable for the rest. Please note: as difficult as this sort of discussion is, I actually agree with Ian that this sort of discussion is valuable and helps keep a volunteer organization healthy. Ethics are hard. They're tricky and complicated, and they can always, *always*, be handled better. There's no perfect way of handling situations, and always possible improvements, and the way that one works out those improvements is through public discussion. Having this sort of public discussion of one's decisions is really painful, since it can feel personal and feel like an attack on one's honor, but I really don't think it is. Rather, it's an acknowledgement that this stuff is really hard, and lots of brains together are sometimes required to find the best ways of handling various situations, particularly unprecedented ones. Right. We have had very hard decision processes over the years. And after all, we have come out with better policies. So, yes, we should have a talk about this kind of topics. Maybe as a DebConf session, maybe as a mail thread during a quieter period. Maybe something more ample (i.e. not just regarding DebConf but as handling funds in Debian in general). But, please, this is a very hard circumstance to bring up the point. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Holger Levsen writes (Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): The anonymous donations we got offered were rejected (by us) Why do you use scare quotes ? On Samstag, 1. Dezember 2012, Holger Levsen wrote: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html it's a dead horse. old, long dead. can we please stop beating it? I'm sorry to keep making trouble, but strings-attached offers of substantial amounts of money from anonymous donors are a serious matter. Even if the decision for Debconf13 is already finalised, we need to have transparency. Your statement that these offers were rejected by the Debconf team doesn't seem consistent with the story I heard which is (as far as I can make out) that the donors got cold feet and downgraded their offer from a donation to a loan, which latter obviously wasn't useful to Debconf. See for example Philipp Hug's email: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html Philipp says it's now clear that they only wanted to provide DebConf with liquidity, which suggests that at some earlier point this wasn't clear and the suggestion appeared to be a donation. Please would you also answer the rest of my questions. Particularly critical are: 6. Were the proposed donors in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf ? Examples of people in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf include the DPL, the DPL helpers tasked with Debconf-related tasks, people involved with Debconf accounting on behalf of SPI or FFIS, and of course members of the Debconf global or local teams. I have heard allegations that the answer to this question is yes. Please would you either deny this, or confirm it and explain. And: 3. Were any conditions attached ? If so what were the conditions ? It has been alleged that the conditions attached were that we hold DC13 at Le Camp. Again, would you please confirm or deny. I think the whole project is entitled to full and frank answers to all of my questions. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20668.39337.37.805...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Le dimanche 02 décembre 2012 à 18:31 +0100, Philipp Hug a écrit : AFAIK there was an offer of a huge anonymous donation, which at the end seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was string attached. Anyway that offer endured only few days because debconf-team and localteam declined such offer. This is correct. After this was mentioned on IRC I asked about the details of this 'donation' and figured out it's just a loan, accepting some risks though, but with strings attached: The venue would need to be LeCamp. Is this anonymous-donation-which-is-not-a-donation story related to the rumors of sponsorship from a large tobacco company? It would worry me that it was even considered to accept money from a murderer company. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1354561294.24058.7.camel@tomoyo
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Le dimanche 02 décembre 2012 à 20:22 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit : DebConf13 will be held in Le Camp, Vaumarcus, Switzerland. The DebConf chairs atm are preparing a message explaining why we (still ;) think this is a good idea. If you think DebConf is a total desaster and should be done so and so, please apply for DebConf14. Or 15. Thanks. I couldn’t care less whether a gathering of geeks who feel like they’re still 16, in the woods is a total disaster or not. But if it is, I hope you do not count on the Debian project’s money to fill in the budget gaps. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1354561486.24058.10.camel@tomoyo
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 03/12/12 20:01, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 02 décembre 2012 à 18:31 +0100, Philipp Hug a écrit : AFAIK there was an offer of a huge anonymous donation, which at the end seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was string attached. Anyway that offer endured only few days because debconf-team and localteam declined such offer. This is correct. After this was mentioned on IRC I asked about the details of this 'donation' and figured out it's just a loan, accepting some risks though, but with strings attached: The venue would need to be LeCamp. Is this anonymous-donation-which-is-not-a-donation story related to the rumors of sponsorship from a large tobacco company? In fact, it has nothing to do with the tobacco company. That is completely independent. This thread is about probity (personal involvement of team members in financial arrangements) It would worry me that it was even considered to accept money from a It was discussed on this thread: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121115.112828.29ea0d12.en.html It is really important to remember that there are many companies that some people will have issues with (e.g. logging the Amazon, testing drugs on animals, hacking voicemail to get news stories, even one of the existing sponsors has been mentioned in various controversies concerning privacy) and I would propose that people with views on this send their comments to the sponsors team private list: debconf-sponsors-t...@lists.debconf.org Given the sensitive nature of individual sponsorship arrangements, if people do express concerns to us privately, the sponsors team probably needs to think of a way to consult the wider community on this without wrongly focusing on just one company/industry because they happen to be located near a proposed DebConf venue. Then some generic principals can be developed to guide decisions about which sponsors are accepted. But as pointed out above, the reason for this particular thread is not directly related to the tobacco company. In fact, that is one reason why this whole thing needs to be cleared up, so that such ambiguities won't arise if there is some anonymous sponsor later on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bcfe29.9060...@pocock.com.au
Re: Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 2012-11-30 18:44, Ian Jackson wrote: apparently some anonymous donors proposed to give or loan Debconf 13 CHF40K (~Eur33K). Can the Debconf global team, and/or the DC13 local team, please answer the following questions ? Since your questions remain unanswered, I just want to say as one of the DebConf Chairs that I think the questions are valid, but I personally don't know any details about this that would help clear them up. I'm uncomfortable about the idea of such a sum of anonymous money flowing towards Debconf. One natural worry would be that it would come with strings attached. Certainly at the time many people within the DebConf team were uncomfortable that this anonymous donation was used to argue that we didn't need to worry about the high prices at Le Camp, and to argue that we should definitely choose Le Camp since this money was only available if we went there. As has been stated already in this thread, after some questioning it subsequently turned out that it wasn't really a donation anyway, but a loan with the intention of providing liquidity at an early stage, and the DebConf budget team decided it was not useful to accept the offer since alternative and less mysterious liquidity sources were available. -- Moray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d9962e808cded2dbd775eef084c2...@www.morayallan.com
Re: Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Ian Jackson writes (Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of course I don't want to be spreading unverified rumours. I have had private emails from various people on this topic. They seem to me to confirm that there is something to worry about here. Please would someone from the Debconf team answer my questions. Needless to say these answers must come in public. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20667.28023.427450.841...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 12/02/2012 04:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: Ian Jackson writes (Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of course I don't want to be spreading unverified rumours. I have had private emails from various people on this topic. They seem to me to confirm that there is something to worry about here. Please would someone from the Debconf team answer my questions. Needless to say these answers must come in public. AFAIK there was an offer of a huge anonymous donation, which at the end seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was string attached. Anyway that offer endured only few days because debconf-team and localteam declined such offer. There was an other small anonymous donation (which was initially classified as anonymous sponsorship, but this was a small amount, not very different to the other donations received by Debian. No strings attached. You should see it as a small donation because our high value in software (and it is also free as free beer!), but without going to the full bureaucratic procedures of a big company and without a public endorsement Company A uses/support Debian. I've not yet seen other anonymous donations. But if I'm wrong, i encourage the other localteam/debconf-team members to correct me. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bb7286.5070...@debian.org
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 02/12/12 16:23, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: On 12/02/2012 04:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: Ian Jackson writes (Anonymous donation to Debconf 13): I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of course I don't want to be spreading unverified rumours. I have had private emails from various people on this topic. They seem to me to confirm that there is something to worry about here. Please would someone from the Debconf team answer my questions. Needless to say these answers must come in public. AFAIK there was an offer of a huge anonymous donation, which at the end seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was string attached. Anyway that offer endured only few days because debconf-team and localteam declined such offer. Not quite: I believe Philipp said the money wasn't needed. His email doesn't say whether the money was actually real in the sense that DebConf would have definitely received the money if it was needed, or if it was just a hypothetical discussion that the sponsor(s) hadn't fully committed to anyway. This distinction is significant because Holger was under the impression that these funds were 'secured' at the time he considered and finally decided Le Camp may not be financially impossible. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bb77c5.5070...@pocock.com.au
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Hi, AFAIK there was an offer of a huge anonymous donation, which at the end seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was string attached. Anyway that offer endured only few days because debconf-team and localteam declined such offer. This is correct. After this was mentioned on IRC I asked about the details of this 'donation' and figured out it's just a loan, accepting some risks though, but with strings attached: The venue would need to be LeCamp. This looked like a lot more problems to me than it would solve so I proposed to cancel this ASAP and that's why I sent the email which was already mentioned in this thread. There was an other small anonymous donation (which was initially classified as anonymous sponsorship, but this was a small amount, not very different to the other donations received by Debian. No strings attached. You should see it as a small donation because our high value in software (and it is also free as free beer!), but without going to the full bureaucratic procedures of a big company and without a public endorsement Company A uses/support Debian. This is correct and this is quite usual. Some person X has his own budget in a company which he can spend, but he's not allowed to publicly use the name of his company in relation with an event without going through the whole process. This donation comes with no strings attached. I've not yet seen other anonymous donations. But if I'm wrong, i encourage the other localteam/debconf-team members to correct me. regards, Philipp Hug -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAEwy9bguEdyMoG1-bHouXgoFD=5f-ztjabbrrbjwzyegbop...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 02/12/12 18:31, Philipp Hug wrote: Hi, AFAIK there was an offer of a huge anonymous donation, which at the end seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was string attached. Anyway that offer endured only few days because debconf-team and localteam declined such offer. This is correct. After this was mentioned on IRC I asked about the details of this 'donation' and figured out it's just a loan, accepting some risks though, but with strings attached: The venue would need to be LeCamp. Can you just confirm: who proposed those conditions? Did this come from somebody who was involved in the decision making (e.g. a committee member or a negotiator)? Or was the offer and the conditions from some third party outside the debconf team? Did you feel the offer was 100% genuine - had the lender/sponsor committed in writing to pay the money if it was needed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bb93a2.3020...@pocock.com.au
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Hi Daniel, Can you just confirm: who proposed those conditions? Did this come from somebody who was involved in the decision making (e.g. a committee member or a negotiator)? Or was the offer and the conditions from some third party outside the debconf team? If you want to know more details you should ask h01ger. Did you feel the offer was 100% genuine - had the lender/sponsor committed in writing to pay the money if it was needed? Well, I my plan was to have a written contract, but we cancelled it before we even drafted it. So, I can't really tell you more about the offer. Philipp
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Hi, I somewhat wonder why I have to write this mail. As I already wrote the mail quoted below (which was also just repeating stuff said elsewhere)... The anonymous donations we got offered were rejected (by us) on October 28th (or 29th, not 101% sure about the exact date), I'm pretty sure Philipp did this on debconf-t...@l.dc.o. They were not included in the budget the DPL was asked to approve. As said, dead horse. On Samstag, 1. Dezember 2012, Holger Levsen wrote: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html it's a dead horse. old, long dead. can we please stop beating it? DebConf13 will be held in Le Camp, Vaumarcus, Switzerland. The DebConf chairs atm are preparing a message explaining why we (still ;) think this is a good idea. If you think DebConf is a total desaster and should be done so and so, please apply for DebConf14. Or 15. Thanks. For over a year, debconf-team (which albeit is only a loosely bunch of people) have weighted several options in Switzerland and yet three times we agreed to hold it in Le Camp, because a.) it will be good and b.) other options have other (severe) downsides. Please don't think we haven't considered $foo - we very very likely have. cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201212022022.50716.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On 01/12/12 01:32, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Freitag, 30. November 2012, David Prévot wrote: I fail to understand, if you really “don't want to be spreading unverified rumours”, why are you posting this kind of questions to two other wider mailing lists? [...] http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html it's a dead horse. old, long dead. No, it's not I made two trips to evaluate an alternative venue Feeling threatened by this competition, rather than working harder to get a good deal, proponents of the original venue suddenly secured 40k CHF of anonymous sponsorship, but with various strings attached, including a condition that the original venue was used Consequently, the other merits of the venues were not heavily discussed and one of the DebConf chairs (yourself) suddenly started publicly endorsing Le Camp with the original super-size budget The fact that the 40k promise was taken away again a few days after your epiphany doesn't change the fact that it was on the table while you were in Switzerland doing the venue evaluation. With this new found enthusiasm for Le Camp, much more time was then wasted taking a fresh look at the Le Camp budget, valuable time that could have been spent negotiating a better deal or looking at other venues. In the end, when the figures didn't add up, DebCamp had to be abolished, and many people now feel that is a bad thing for Debian overall. Whether it was sponsorship or a loan or something else doesn't really matter either: your communications from 28 October indicated that this money was a key factor in your decision to endorse Le Camp. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50ba0a61.3070...@pocock.com.au
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 01/12/12 01:32, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Freitag, 30. November 2012, David Prévot wrote: I fail to understand, if you really “don't want to be spreading unverified rumours”, why are you posting this kind of questions to two other wider mailing lists? [...] http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html it's a dead horse. old, long dead. No, it's not Regardless of it's current age or health, can y'all please do the horse beating elsewhere? I made two trips to evaluate an alternative venue Feeling threatened by this competition, rather than working harder to get a good deal, proponents of the original venue suddenly secured 40k CHF of anonymous sponsorship, but with various strings attached, including a condition that the original venue was used Consequently, the other merits of the venues were not heavily discussed and one of the DebConf chairs (yourself) suddenly started publicly endorsing Le Camp with the original super-size budget The fact that the 40k promise was taken away again a few days after your epiphany doesn't change the fact that it was on the table while you were in Switzerland doing the venue evaluation. With this new found enthusiasm for Le Camp, much more time was then wasted taking a fresh look at the Le Camp budget, valuable time that could have been spent negotiating a better deal or looking at other venues. In the end, when the figures didn't add up, DebCamp had to be abolished, and many people now feel that is a bad thing for Debian overall. Whether it was sponsorship or a loan or something else doesn't really matter either: your communications from 28 October indicated that this money was a key factor in your decision to endorse Le Camp. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50ba0a61.3070...@pocock.com.au -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of course I don't want to be spreading unverified rumours. What I have found out from public sources, for example this message http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121031.082232.2c9c4f00.en.html is that apparently some anonymous donors proposed to give or loan Debconf 13 CHF40K (~Eur33K). I'm uncomfortable about the idea of such a sum of anonymous money flowing towards Debconf. One natural worry would be that it would come with strings attached. Can the Debconf global team, and/or the DC13 local team, please answer the following questions ? 1. Is it true that there was a proposal that anyone should make an anonymous donation or loan to Debconf 13 ? If so: 2. Exactly what was proposed, and when was it proposed ? 3. Were any conditions attached ? If so what were the conditions ? 4. How far did the discussions progress (so far) ? Has the proposal now been abandoned and if so, when ? 5. Were the proposed donors individuals (if so how many?), a company, a government, or an NGO ? 6. Were the proposed donors in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf ? Examples of people in positions of authority or governance in relation to Debconf include the DPL, the DPL helpers tasked with Debconf-related tasks, people involved with Debconf accounting on behalf of SPI or FFIS, and of course members of the Debconf global or local teams. 7. Who initiated the proposal ? Was it (a) the prospective donor; or (b) a member of the DC global team; or (c) a member of the DC13 local team; or (d) some third party ? If (b) or (c), which individual member(s) of the team ? 8. Was the existence of this proposal made formally known to the full DC team (eg on the internal private mailing list) ? I think these are the most critical questions the answers to which might shed some light on the situation. I'm hoping the answers will be prompt, full, and frank - and of course, reassuring. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20664.65186.611229.608...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Le 30/11/2012 14:44, Ian Jackson a écrit : I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of course I don't want to be spreading unverified rumours. I fail to understand, if you really “don't want to be spreading unverified rumours”, why are you posting this kind of questions to two other wider mailing lists? Hopefully, another message from the initial mailing list you just quoted, sent two days later, with a pretty explicit subject (“[Debconf-team] Correction of rumors and comments about anonymous financial support for LeCamp”), may answer your questions the easy way. http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html Regards David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQuQJcAAoJELgqIXr9/gnyj08QAIS3iKGItom6VRjkfy3pYm5+ fPGS6hIXtYvur5BIEb7LHFdjzbyV+u9zUnXn/0KDEqYy3QZo1V7lFbe22V1gxLUb ltqL2fjieFqQ67vQ3D4sroO7mftbsZqhdZPo+QfuUMBvmZO4yYbtmG3j/4MV+1jr s48DeX1rYcghKty8MP5PZ+Om8oobqe7OAbWtBrVidXkoeXvuK6Bjsx4umTzZBrtq QDShlWxZUB0KE4lQnedcn3a1mbrKEx8wPtqsTpACLKNCILi1rSpDihQjQhdvLZjt fMLEqqRc3+4a+IvNeqxHE//Pss1epldPnLD/WUppLDAKKvPD+8JKuZdAg0C/g2kW K6Q7qhqzZ1MjQ81piJ1mxpb3F3mVoyLK4vYox/YNVkh5OruCije6xIn0b0ueDd8R rSZx0HWPn2lUmC4LRuKi+chTJC75fYfXWC8AdUP3IyovvERRatxuSaBizjQhtW1P uAxVQiF1+RBoH4kVbwKpV2L+0khYZ7oJlcbuPtHlOTzzSrlbTV8OWzhXPJtvLv+6 PZFOgxin3uLUMcpWNXEg5L3LTULtRW+Ttwzg0eF1fo/tLt2oZVvheKOLdmxxhuUS U3o6Wd9HIBX0imlI9o9aycAkDXWiupfM4qGwi8MpqJlFnp6c8VBU2fFK7ScemQpi x9MVMCH5jjooU4eEmirI =w+Gs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50b9025c.9080...@tilapin.org
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Anonymous donation to Debconf 13
Hi, On Freitag, 30. November 2012, David Prévot wrote: I fail to understand, if you really “don't want to be spreading unverified rumours”, why are you posting this kind of questions to two other wider mailing lists? [...] http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.en.html it's a dead horse. old, long dead. cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201212010132.26744.hol...@layer-acht.org
