Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Ian Jackson]

Chris Bannister writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations 
handling process"):
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:13:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If a CoC complaint is made, and the decisionmakers consider the
> > complaint unjustified, the complaint should not be referred elsewhere
> > or escalated.  Instead, the decision (complaint considered not
> > justified, no action will be taken) should be communicated to the
> > complainant.
> 
> I think that could be misconstrued. For example, if someone complains
> because they were called a big fat horse, and on close inspection of a
> photograph that allegation has some justification, I think the
> complaint, itself, is still justified.

I don't really understand your point.  It is the _complaint_ whose
justification (or lack of it) should be decided on, and the decision
communicated.   But if you prefer, please pretend I wrote something
like
  Instead, the decision (complaint not upheld, no action will be taken)
  should be communicated to the complainant.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/21512.46866.892248.857...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Ian Jackson  [2014-09-04 05:15 
-0700]:
> I am not angry or upset with the performance of Debconf organisers
> or the antiharassment team.  Rather, I feel that they were not
> provided with the tools and support required to do their job.

Right, and we are also new to this. We should not try to hide this
but be up front and open about it.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Chris Bannister]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:13:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> If a CoC complaint is made, and the decisionmakers consider the
> complaint unjustified, the complaint should not be referred elsewhere
> or escalated.  Instead, the decision (complaint considered not
> justified, no action will be taken) should be communicated to the
> complainant.

I think that could be misconstrued. For example, if someone complains
because they were called a big fat horse, and on close inspection of a
photograph that allegation has some justification, I think the
complaint, itself, is still justified.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140904125817.GA8218@tal

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Ian Jackson]

martin f krafft writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations 
handling process"):
> also sprach Patty Langasek  [2014-09-03 16:57 -0700]:
> > The way this particular Code of Conduct Violation Complaint was
> > handled was entirely my fault.
> 
> I don't think there is any point in thinking about fault here. Go
> ahead and disagree with me, but the more important thing for me is
> that we learn from this — and by this I mean to include everyone
> — and do better next time.

Indeed.

I am not angry or upset with the performance of Debconf organisers or
the antiharassment team.  Rather, I feel that they were not provided
with the tools and support required to do their job.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/21512.22481.752488.471...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Ian Jackson]

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations 
handling process"):
> In the particular incident prompting this thread, [...]

I started writing a response to this.  But I found that my response,
no matter how carefully phrased, read like an attack on the people who
dealt with my complaint (and the other similar complaints which I
understand have been made).

That was not my intent.  And I very much regret creating a situation
where people have felt the need to apologise.  The job of the key
decisionmakers in this kind of situation is very stressful and
difficult.

I would like to thank the decisionmakers for considering my complaint.
While obviously I am disappointed that it was not considered
justified, now that I'm aware that that was the decision taken, I do
not intend to take the specific matter further.


I would like to make some general points, not necessarily prompted by
any aspects of any particular incident:


If a CoC complaint is made, and the decisionmakers consider the
complaint unjustified, the complaint should not be referred elsewhere
or escalated.  Instead, the decision (complaint considered not
justified, no action will be taken) should be communicated to the
complainant.

This is true even if the complaint requests a remedy which is never
appropriate in response to a CoC complaint.

If the complaint requests a remedy which is sometimes appropriate, but
is outside of the powers of the antiharassment team, there should be
a well-defined process for escalating the matter to an appropriate
authority.  That escalation should occur only if the antiharassment
team consider the complaint justified and consider that the requested
remedy is (or might be) proportionate.


Decision flow should be documented so that decisionmakers can have its
support in what is often a stressful and difficult situation.

When a complaint is made by email, the formal response should be made
by email too.  When a complaint is made by irc, the response should be
made by email or perhaps by irc.  We should consider whether a written
response should be provided (or offered) even in the case of verbal
complaints.

There should be a record of complaints, decisions and remedies.  (If
things are done by email this happens automatically; if things are
done verbally or by unlogged irc, a record will have to be
deliberately made.)

Complainants who receive an adverse decision, or violators who are
subjected to a sanction, should be told whether, and if so how, an
appeal/escalation/reconsideration can be mounted.  My view on this
question is that decisions should be final as far as possible and that
therefore the only appeal route should be a GR.  So responses by email
should say something like "this decison is final, and if you are
dissatisfied the only way to overturn it would be a successful General
Resolution of the Debian Project; we do not recommend trying to
overturn our decision that way" or some such.



> >  * Outline our approach to violations by guest speakers, or other
> >parties who attend the conference (or associated events) only
> >briefly, where it is not possible to eject the violator (nor to
> >threaten to, in order to extract an apology and promise of better
> >behaviour).
> 
> To what end?
> 
> The stated purpose of the CoC is to ensure that our conference is a safe
> space for all members of the Debian community.  In what way would a change
> in approach to dealing with a violation after the fact, where the offender
> is no longer at the conference, further that goal?

Various people (not necessary ones in authority) commented that some
of the ways one might enforce a CoC would be difficult if the violator
had already left the conference.  I'm just saying that this should be
considered when writing down what remedies are appropriate/available.


Thanks,
Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/21512.22371.883119.106...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Richard Hartmann]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Steve Langasek  wrote:
> It's also possible that, as a matter of course, we should ensure that the
> antiharassment team responds timely in writing to all complaints, even if
> there is an out-of-band follow-up.

Following up in the same media used for a complaint is good.

I feel it's important to note that this does _not_ imply that the
actual decision, and possible actions taken, if any, are relayed in
all cases, though. This should be decided case-by-case.


Richard


-- 
Richard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAD77+gQkP=LQwbdvyPyCi9mjmr3zj1f_=pcdzndht5amtp-...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Patty Langasek  [2014-09-03 16:57 -0700]:
> The way this particular Code of Conduct Violation Complaint was
> handled was entirely my fault.

I don't think there is any point in thinking about fault here. Go
ahead and disagree with me, but the more important thing for me is
that we learn from this — and by this I mean to include everyone
— and do better next time.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
in the beginning was the word,
and the word was content-type: text/plain


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 9/4/14, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> Zenaan Harkness  writes:
>
>> More facts trickle out. Thank you for stepping up to the plate.
>
>> Any chance someone could crush an egg shell already and just post a link
>> to the brouhaha? Or summarise the events?
>
>> Are we that timid, that dominated by the almighty COC, that facts are no
>> longer politically correct?
>
>> I happen to think facts are a useful foundation to a conversation.
>
> I don't think the conversation about the specific event that happened is a
> useful conversation to have here, and I think it has a very high chance of
> creating huge amounts of heat and smoke to no constructive effect.  I
> realize that the curiousity of bystanders has been piqued (and it would
> have been nice if we'd been able to have a conversation without doing
> that, although that's a lot to ask), but honestly I think it would be more
> rubbernecking than any foundation for constructive debate.

May be true, but intentional avoidance -causes- interest.

A simple statement such as "An event occurred where some words
were spoken and exception was taken, and incorrectly escalated to
the DPL" would surely be adequate to downplay the event, head off
rubbernecking, and provide a minimal non-fact for context of the
conversation?

(The suggested quote is based only on what has arisen in this
thread, I cannot be bothered to go digging for such tripe myself.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSRpugkHYS9MTBzCHTxXgzV7a3k2WvHh_+Ax5TqUs=h...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Russ Allbery]

Zenaan Harkness  writes:

> More facts trickle out. Thank you for stepping up to the plate.

> Any chance someone could crush an egg shell already and just post a link
> to the brouhaha? Or summarise the events?

> Are we that timid, that dominated by the almighty COC, that facts are no
> longer politically correct?

> I happen to think facts are a useful foundation to a conversation.

I don't think the conversation about the specific event that happened is a
useful conversation to have here, and I think it has a very high chance of
creating huge amounts of heat and smoke to no constructive effect.  I
realize that the curiousity of bystanders has been piqued (and it would
have been nice if we'd been able to have a conversation without doing
that, although that's a lot to ask), but honestly I think it would be more
rubbernecking than any foundation for constructive debate.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wq9kp434@hope.eyrie.org

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 9/4/14, Patty Langasek  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:29:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I think more guidance for the teams involved would be helpful.  The
>> Debconf and Debian CoC statements are too difficult to amend.  The DC
>> and Debian teams should develop a process document which those
>> responsible would use to guide their actions.
>
> The way this particular Code of Conduct Violation Complaint was handled was
> entirely my fault.  Antiharassement received the complaint, and I forwarded
> it on to lea...@debian.org because the requested concessions were beyond
> the
> scope of the antiharassment team to handle (we do not issue blanket
> statements on behalf of debian). I did not reply to Ian to let him know

More facts trickle out. Thank you for stepping up to the plate.

Any chance someone could crush an egg shell already and just
post a link to the brouhaha? Or summarise the events?

Are we that timid, that dominated by the almighty COC,
that facts are no longer politically correct?

I happen to think facts are a useful foundation to a conversation.




> that
> his complaint had been received and forwarded to the appropriate people in
> the timely manner that I would expect for a complaint to antiharassment,
> and
> I accept full responsibility for that. I am very sorry.
>
> I was mistaken in thinking that the two followup conversations I had with
> Ian indicating his complaint had been received (and forwarded on to
> lea...@debian.org) were sufficient in keeping him informed of the
> situation,
> even if during one of the conversations it became clear that we did not all
> agree on specifics of the situation.
>
> I will not make that mistake again.
>
> In the future, complaints sent to antiharassm...@debian.org should be
> acknowledged by email as soon as possible, even if other parties are needed
> for consultation in the matter.
>
>
> Patty
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Patty Langasek
> harmo...@dodds.net | harmo...@debian.org
>
> --
>
> At times, you may end up far away from home;
> you may not be sure of where you belong anymore.
> But home is always there...  because home is not a place.
> It's wherever your passion takes you.
> --- J. Michael Straczynski
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140903235756.gc17...@dodds.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNST=t4zsqthp4pksszvx--ahxbxul1vkn-piw5gv6z6...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Patty Langasek]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:29:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think more guidance for the teams involved would be helpful.  The
> Debconf and Debian CoC statements are too difficult to amend.  The DC
> and Debian teams should develop a process document which those
> responsible would use to guide their actions.

The way this particular Code of Conduct Violation Complaint was handled was
entirely my fault.  Antiharassement received the complaint, and I forwarded
it on to lea...@debian.org because the requested concessions were beyond the
scope of the antiharassment team to handle (we do not issue blanket
statements on behalf of debian). I did not reply to Ian to let him know that
his complaint had been received and forwarded to the appropriate people in
the timely manner that I would expect for a complaint to antiharassment, and
I accept full responsibility for that. I am very sorry.

I was mistaken in thinking that the two followup conversations I had with
Ian indicating his complaint had been received (and forwarded on to
lea...@debian.org) were sufficient in keeping him informed of the situation,
even if during one of the conversations it became clear that we did not all
agree on specifics of the situation.

I will not make that mistake again.

In the future, complaints sent to antiharassm...@debian.org should be
acknowledged by email as soon as possible, even if other parties are needed
for consultation in the matter.


Patty


-- 
--

Patty Langasek
harmo...@dodds.net | harmo...@debian.org

--

At times, you may end up far away from home; 
you may not be sure of where you belong anymore.  
But home is always there...  because home is not a place.  
It's wherever your passion takes you.
--- J. Michael Straczynski


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140903235756.gc17...@dodds.net

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote:


> The stated purpose of the CoC is to ensure that our conference is a safe
> space for all members of the Debian community.  In what way would a change
> in approach to dealing with a violation after the fact, where the offender
> is no longer at the conference, further that goal?

Perhaps to set the tone for future conferences, and to emphasize
 that we actually do try to act on violations of the bits about respect
 and making attendeea feel welcome (unless we think we are a community
 where being called crazy bigotted peple amounts to welcoming speech)

manoj
-- 
When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment
results. Calvin Coolidge
Manoj Srivastava    
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20  05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:29:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think more guidance for the teams involved would be helpful.  The
> Debconf and Debian CoC statements are too difficult to amend.  The DC
> and Debian teams should develop a process document which those
> responsible would use to guide their actions.

> That document should:

>  * Give some examples of behaviours with in each case the appropriate
>response.  This will greatly assist the decisionmaking team.

Has the decisionmaking team indicated that they have any difficulty making
decisions in the absence of such a guide?

I think this recommendation is motivated by a disagreement with the outcome
of the complaint you raised because they did not side with you, and not out
of any genuine sympathy for their supposed plight.

>  * Say who is responsible for dealing with complaints about bad
>behaviour occurring at (or associated with) Debian conferences and
>meetings.

  "Complaints can be made to the organizers by contacting the registration
  desk or emailing antiharassm...@debian.org.  All complaints made to event
  organizers will remain confidential and be taken seriously.  The complaint
  will be treated appropriately and with discretion."

This doesn't seem ambiguous to me?

In the particular incident prompting this thread, I understand that you sent
a mail to antiharassm...@debian.org; and that you subsequently followed up
with a member of the antiharassment team in person, who told you that they
did not consider the incident at hand a CoC violation and did not intend to
take any further action against an individual who was no longer at the
conference.  It's possible that you were unaware that the person in question
was a member of the anti-harassment team, and that you were approaching them
in their capacity as a member of the DebConf team?  See "Anti-harassment" on
 for reference.

It's also possible that, as a matter of course, we should ensure that the
antiharassment team responds timely in writing to all complaints, even if
there is an out-of-band follow-up.

>It seems to me that a conference raises different issues to the
>mostly online interactions in the rest of the project.  The nature
>of violations is likely to be different; the evidential basis is
>going to be different; and the required timescale for a response is
>much shorter.

>ISTM therefore that CoC complaints about behaviour at (or
>associated with) a Debian event such as a conference should be
>dealt with by the conference team (or a subteam of the conference
>team).

This is a reasonable requirement.  It would certainly need to be a subteam,
not the team as a whole; if we want responses to such issues that are both
timely and measured, the very last thing you want to do is pile the
responsibility on top of the general heap of conference-related duties.

However, I'm not sure how this proposal differs from what we already have. 
The folks behind the antiharassm...@debian.org address are there precisely
because they've volunteered to be responsible for handling such matters at
conferences (not on the lists... if there are problems on the lists, the
listmasters already have the authority to take action).  And two of the
three members of that team were physically present at the conference and
were most certainly part of the on-the-ground conference team this year.

>  * State that decisions on the appropriate response to a violation
>should be made without involvement of the DPL or the press team,
>and should be without fear or favour (whether towards complainant
>or accused).

It is obviously incorrect for a CoC violation to be referred to either the
DPL or the press team.

However, in the case at hand, the antiharassment team *did not agree* that a
CoC violation had occurred; and AIUI they referred the matter to the DPL on
the grounds that you were requesting a specific remedy that was entirely out
of scope for the antiharassment team.

Perhaps the point is that the antiharassment team should never make such
referrals, but instead leave it to the complainant to determine whether they
wish to pursue other remedies via Debian's political channels?  That seems a
reasonable principle, in keeping with the overall expectation of
confidentiality.

>  * Outline our approach to violations by guest speakers, or other
>parties who attend the conference (or associated events) only
>briefly, where it is not possible to eject the violator (nor to
>threaten to, in order to extract an apology and promise of better
>behaviour).

To what end?

The stated purpose of the CoC is to ensure that our conference is a safe
space for all members of the Debian community.  In what way would a change
in approach to dealing with a violation after the fact, where the offender
is no longer at the conference, further that goal?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a l

Re: [Debconf-discuss] DebConf14: Last call for keys for keysigning in Portland, Oregon, USA

[Aníbal Monsalve Salazar]

On Wed, 2014-08-20 08:21:41 +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-19 16:12:00 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:27:28AM +0200, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>>> As part of the 15th Debian Conference in Portland, Oregon, USA there
>>> will be OpenPGP (pgp/gpg) keysignings.  If you intend to participate in
>>> the DebConf14 keysignings, please send your ascii armored public key as
>>> explained at [0] no later than 23:59 UTC/Zulu on Monday 18th of August,
>>> 2014.
>>> 
>>> We are a few days away from the deadline!
>>> 
>>> Some statistics are below.
>>> 
>>> · At this point in time, there are 79 keys in the DebConf14 keyring:
>>> 
>>>   6  1024D
>> 
>> I can think of no good reason to be including these keys in the DC14
>> keysigning and in fact believe that it is actively harmful for us to be
>> encouraging people to continue propagating the use of 1024 bit keys. I
>> hope that all 6 keys are from people who have also generated larger
>> keys, but even if they're not I would like to request that they are
>> removed from the DC14 keysigning keyring.
>> 
>> People, move to larger keys. Yesterday. keyring-maint has been banging
>> this drum for some time. DebConf is the perfect time to make sure your
>> new key is well linked with the rest of Debian.
> 
> I'll remove all 1024D keys.
> 
> If someone has a good reason to object, please do so ASAP.

All the 1024D keys were removed.

The keyring, the list of keys and a condensed list of keys have been
released.

https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/

https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.gpg.bz2
https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.gpg.bz2.sha256
https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.gpg.bz2.sha256.asc

https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.txt
https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.txt.sha256
https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.txt.sha256.asc

https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.condensed.txt
https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.condensed.txt.sha256
https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.condensed.txt.sha256.asc

After downloading the files, check the signatures and then the sha256
hashes.

The webpage at [0] explains how to do that.

[0] https://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc14/ksp-dc14.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] DebConf14: Last call for keys for keysigning in Portland, Oregon, USA

[Aníbal Monsalve Salazar]

On Tue, 2014-08-19 16:12:00 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:27:28AM +0200, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>> As part of the 15th Debian Conference in Portland, Oregon, USA there
>> will be OpenPGP (pgp/gpg) keysignings.  If you intend to participate in
>> the DebConf14 keysignings, please send your ascii armored public key as
>> explained at [0] no later than 23:59 UTC/Zulu on Monday 18th of August,
>> 2014.
>> 
>> We are a few days away from the deadline!
>> 
>> Some statistics are below.
>> 
>> · At this point in time, there are 79 keys in the DebConf14 keyring:
>> 
>>   6  1024D
> 
> I can think of no good reason to be including these keys in the DC14
> keysigning and in fact believe that it is actively harmful for us to be
> encouraging people to continue propagating the use of 1024 bit keys. I
> hope that all 6 keys are from people who have also generated larger
> keys, but even if they're not I would like to request that they are
> removed from the DC14 keysigning keyring.
> 
> People, move to larger keys. Yesterday. keyring-maint has been banging
> this drum for some time. DebConf is the perfect time to make sure your
> new key is well linked with the rest of Debian.

I'll remove all 1024D keys.

If someone has a good reason to object, please do so ASAP.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] DebConf14: Last call for keys for keysigning in Portland, Oregon, USA

[Jonathan McDowell]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:27:28AM +0200, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> As part of the 15th Debian Conference in Portland, Oregon, USA there
> will be OpenPGP (pgp/gpg) keysignings.  If you intend to participate in
> the DebConf14 keysignings, please send your ascii armored public key as
> explained at [0] no later than 23:59 UTC/Zulu on Monday 18th of August,
> 2014.
> 
> We are a few days away from the deadline!
> 
> Some statistics are below.
> 
> · At this point in time, there are 79 keys in the DebConf14 keyring:
> 
>   6  1024D

I can think of no good reason to be including these keys in the DC14
keysigning and in fact believe that it is actively harmful for us to be
encouraging people to continue propagating the use of 1024 bit keys. I
hope that all 6 keys are from people who have also generated larger
keys, but even if they're not I would like to request that they are
removed from the DC14 keysigning keyring.

People, move to larger keys. Yesterday. keyring-maint has been banging
this drum for some time. DebConf is the perfect time to make sure your
new key is well linked with the rest of Debian.

J.

-- 
/-\ |   This screen intentionally left
|@/  Debian GNU/Linux Developer |   blank.
\-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Possible Two Color Debian Logo White Vinyl Sticker Group Buy

[Bdale Garbee]

"Paul R. Tagliamonte"  writes:

> I think Debian FR made a bunch -
> http://www.enventelibre.org/documents/autocollant-debian
>
> 8 cm x 10 cm. - 4" x 4". They're prefect for the back of a thinkpad.

Looks like the one on my notebook is actually about 4.5" tall .. I don't
remember where it came from, I've bought them at various times from
different people on different continents.  ;-)

Bdale


pgpz0i7msd1zu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Possible Two Color Debian Logo White Vinyl Sticker Group Buy

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

I think Debian FR made a bunch -
http://www.enventelibre.org/documents/autocollant-debian

8 cm x 10 cm. - 4" x 4". They're prefect for the back of a thinkpad.


On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Bdale Garbee  wrote:
> Bdale Garbee  writes:
>
>> Don Armstrong  writes:
>>
>>> I think these are going to be closer to US$5-10 per for larger ones, but
>>> I'm interested in getting a few of them myself.
>>
>> I work with a US supplier of cut vinyl decals for the Altus Metrum logo,
>> I'll ask him for a quote on plain swirls in a size or two.
>
> I got a *great* quote on 2, 3, and 4 inch height versions from "my guy"
> for cutting swirls in single-color vinyl.
>
> Do those sizes seem good?
>
> Bdale



-- 
:wq


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAO6P2QQyt_WgocC=rwdcs5it5pkontrq6v-qpqvuqqo1cac...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Possible Two Color Debian Logo White Vinyl Sticker Group Buy

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 07 May 2014, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Bdale Garbee  writes:
> > Don Armstrong  writes:
> >
> >> I think these are going to be closer to US$5-10 per for larger ones, but
> >> I'm interested in getting a few of them myself.
> >
> > I work with a US supplier of cut vinyl decals for the Altus Metrum logo,
> > I'll ask him for a quote on plain swirls in a size or two. 
> 
> I got a *great* quote on 2, 3, and 4 inch height versions from "my guy"
> for cutting swirls in single-color vinyl.  
> 
> Do those sizes seem good?

That seems good to me. Bonus if we can also get the i dot and "debian"
text too. [Perhaps in black or white? Dunno.]

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

Leukocyte... I am your father.
 -- R. Stevens http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1546


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140507213014.gc13...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Possible Two Color Debian Logo White Vinyl Sticker Group Buy

[Bdale Garbee]

Bdale Garbee  writes:

> Don Armstrong  writes:
>
>> I think these are going to be closer to US$5-10 per for larger ones, but
>> I'm interested in getting a few of them myself.
>
> I work with a US supplier of cut vinyl decals for the Altus Metrum logo,
> I'll ask him for a quote on plain swirls in a size or two. 

I got a *great* quote on 2, 3, and 4 inch height versions from "my guy"
for cutting swirls in single-color vinyl.  

Do those sizes seem good?

Bdale


pgprs6pQjVZ0F.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Possible Two Color Debian Logo White Vinyl Sticker Group Buy

[Bdale Garbee]

Don Armstrong  writes:

> I think these are going to be closer to US$5-10 per for larger ones, but
> I'm interested in getting a few of them myself.

I work with a US supplier of cut vinyl decals for the Altus Metrum logo,
I'll ask him for a quote on plain swirls in a size or two. 

Bdale


pgprPL5373GyC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Ean Schuessler]

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  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] Insider manipulation of DC13 site selection, and apparent coverup

[Ian Jackson]

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] Insider manipulation of DC13 
site selection, and apparent coverup"):
> On the more general matter, that you are clearly still very much
> interested in, you probably have noticed that I didn't change my mind
> (i.e. un-approve the budget) based on what I've been told on December
> 2nd. This is because I'm in stark agreement with the position that Russ
> expressed on -project [3].  I agree with you that a donation coming from
> a DebConf team member with strings attached to a venue would have been
> unappropriate. And that is the conclusion that has been reached by the
> "team" (quotes because it's not clear to me how the sponsorship sub-team
> is structured or works). That was indeed the expected outcome, I'm happy
> it's been achieved --- well in advance wrt budget approval and before my
> knowledge about all this issue --- and I found no further reasons to
> complain.
> 
> [3]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/12/msg00034.html

I should say, thanks for clarifying your position on this.

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/20680.34793.937095.604...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Insider manipulation of DC13 site selection, and apparent coverup

[Ian Jackson]

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] Insider manipulation of DC13 
site selection, and apparent coverup"):
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:54:05AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > However, that DC13 team member did tell me that the DPL was fully
> > informed, with all the details, before the DPL approved the DC13
> > budget.
> 
> Please name names or facts to support this or, alternatively, drop it.

As you will see, I have sent you a mail, CC the DC13 team member in
question, and quoting what they said to me in email.  Hopefully they
will respond.

> - Later on, on December 2nd according to my IRC logs, a DebConf team
>   member insisted, on the basis of "I think you should know it", to give
>   me some background about that "anonymous donation" --- that is 6 days
>   later than [1]. So, I do *now* know more about this matter, but I
>   didn't at the time of the budget approval.

Thanks for the clear explanation of the timeline from your point of
view.  I think perhaps the DC13 team member is confused about when the
approval happened.

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/20680.34015.538.913...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Insider manipulation of DC13 site selection, and apparent coverup

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:54:05AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> However, that DC13 team member did tell me that the DPL was fully
> informed, with all the details, before the DPL approved the DC13
> budget.

Please name names or facts to support this or, alternatively, drop it.

- My budget approval mail (subject to conditions) [1] is dated November
  26th. Before that, I've tried to stay as far away as possible from
  DebConf13 organization, pretty much as I've done in the past 3 years
  as DPL for previous DebConf. Not because I'm mean, but simply because
  I've no spare energies to devote to DebConf organization and I've
  always trusted the DebConf Team to do a good job at that. My
  activities in DebConf organization has basically remained at the level
  of answering, as DPL, to the question I got asked from the team, on
  mostly budget-related manners.

  My main involvement in DebConf organization ever has mostly been at a
  process level, to strengthen the formal relationship between DebConf
  organization and Debian as a Project (see the DebConf11 BoF, the
  chairs delegations, and my various 'bits from the DPL' entries on this
  matter over the years).

- As I recall, the first time I've heard about this "anonymous donation"
  is from your mail to -project [2], that is dated November 30th, 4 days
  later than [1].

- Later on, on December 2nd according to my IRC logs, a DebConf team
  member insisted, on the basis of "I think you should know it", to give
  me some background about that "anonymous donation" --- that is 6 days
  later than [1]. So, I do *now* know more about this matter, but I
  didn't at the time of the budget approval.

Now, even if I've never considered "long term memory" to be one of my
strong suites, I do suspect your source is wrong --- at least on this
point.

[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.conference.team/8996 
[2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/11/msg00027.html



I think the above clarification was in order, because you were asserting
(based on sources that are unknown to me) something about myself which
AFAICT is not true.

On the more general matter, that you are clearly still very much
interested in, you probably have noticed that I didn't change my mind
(i.e. un-approve the budget) based on what I've been told on December
2nd. This is because I'm in stark agreement with the position that Russ
expressed on -project [3].  I agree with you that a donation coming from
a DebConf team member with strings attached to a venue would have been
unappropriate. And that is the conclusion that has been reached by the
"team" (quotes because it's not clear to me how the sponsorship sub-team
is structured or works). That was indeed the expected outcome, I'm happy
it's been achieved --- well in advance wrt budget approval and before my
knowledge about all this issue --- and I found no further reasons to
complain.

[3]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/12/msg00034.html

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss-discuss-discuss-and-keep-discussing] ...

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 05 décembre 2012 à 08:50 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : 
> Sure it is.  Josselin was refering to outsiders as people who neither
> read the brochure nor have visited the location and neither were
> involved deeply in the organisation of a DebConf (so people as himself).

Thanks for confirming that “outsiders” is a term for people whom you
actively dragged into your shit first.

Sometimes I’m ashamed just participating in the same project as a person
with such behavior.

-- 
 .''`.  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/1354736206.10966.9.camel@tomoyo

Re: [Debconf-discuss] [Debconf-discuss-discuss-discuss-and-keep-discussing] ...

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:38:42AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > If other people find that it *had almost nothing to do* with DebConf,
> > please tell us.
> 
> As currently planned, Debconf 13 has nothing to do with a conference you
> would ask sponsorship to a fortune 500 company for.

You mean those companies that from time to time send their managers and
teams to spend time in the woods, sleeping in tents, because it's so
good for "team building"? :-) 

Jokes aside, over the past years I've spoken with representatives of
those companies, discussing their interests in supporting financially
Debian --- by sponsoring DebConf or by donating to Debian over the
year. My personal bottom line is that the kind of "gain" they look for
when sponsoring us is different than the usual "advertisement to get new
customers" gain that you often find at technology conferences.

Several of those companies asked me, at the time of evaluating whether
to sponsor Debian or not, questions like "how can we turn our money into
code?". Companies that ask those usually rely on the well being of
Debian and want to make sure their money help volunteers having fun
improving our OS. It's some sort of strategic investment. Or, for the
more cynical, they simply have an already approved budget for "FOSS
sponsoring" and they need to distribute it among well reputed FOSS
projects.

Granted, the choice of DebConf venue (and way more so the choice of
country) will have an impact on companies that do hope to get new
customers by sponsoring a conference. We might lose some of them. But at
the end of the day, what we should care about money-wise is whether the
conference budget is sustainable or not. If it is, I wouldn't care much
about whether it has been assembled by a handful of fortune 500
companies, a long tail of small-ish companies, or funding by public
administrations.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] ...

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 13051 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
>> maybe as a mail thread during a quieter period.
> Anyone like to suggest when that quieter period might be?

About a month after a DebConf ended.

-- 
bye, Joerg
Ubuntu: An ancient african word meaning "I can't configure Debian"


-- 
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/87txs0sy9v@gkar.ganneff.de

Re: [Debconf-discuss-discuss-discuss-and-keep-discussing] ...

[Andreas Tille]

Dear Giacomo,

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:27:18AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 10:36 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Is the “outsiders” word also meaning to describe people who were asked
> > for sponsorship and discovered later that the brochure they were sent
> > had almost nothing to do with what’s actually going on?
> 
> For a lot of people, your writing seems out of context.

Sure it is.  Josselin was refering to outsiders as people who neither
read the brochure nor have visited the location and neither were
involved deeply in the organisation of a DebConf (so people as himself).
There is no point in answering such mails if the subject implies we
should try to finish the discussion.

Kind regards

Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


-- 
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/20121205075028.gc25...@an3as.eu

Re: [Debconf-discuss] [Debconf-discuss-discuss-discuss-and-keep-discussing] ...

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 05 décembre 2012 à 08:27 +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi a
écrit : 
> For a lot of people, your writing seems out of context.
> The sponsorship brochure is linked in:
> http://debconf13.debconf.org/helpus.xhtml
> 
> If other people find that it *had almost nothing to do* with DebConf,
> please tell us.

As currently planned, Debconf 13 has nothing to do with a conference you
would ask sponsorship to a fortune 500 company for.

> BTW: someone noticed me that I did a single-list-reply on my answer to
> your previous mail. Here my reply:
> .

I’m aware of this reply, and I’m glad you mention it. I invite everyone
at large to read it, it is very insightful – although probably not in
the way you meant it to be.

-- 
 .''`.  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/1354693122.7074.6.camel@tomoyo

Re: [Debconf-discuss] [Debconf-discuss-discuss-discuss-and-keep-discussing] ...

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

On 12/04/2012 10:36 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 04 décembre 2012 à 13:38 -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
>> People, (most of) the Swiss team is pissed with the lack of trust and
>> lack of respect we have been showing for months already, and that now
>> some very vocal outsiders (i.e. Debian people who are not involved in
>> this year's DebConf organization) are showing. 
> 
> Is the “outsiders” word also meaning to describe people who were asked
> for sponsorship and discovered later that the brochure they were sent
> had almost nothing to do with what’s actually going on?

For a lot of people, your writing seems out of context.
The sponsorship brochure is linked in:
http://debconf13.debconf.org/helpus.xhtml

If other people find that it *had almost nothing to do* with DebConf,
please tell us.

BTW: someone noticed me that I did a single-list-reply on my answer to
your previous mail. Here my reply:
.

Personally I see many of your *attacks* are not founded. Possibly
DebConf13 is not a DebConf for you (anyway we have a fantastic Video
Team), but we need such kind of DebConf every few years, which fits
better other DDs. It seems that you are entering in the Linus mode.

If people doesn't like next DebConf, it suffices to tell the world that
you don't like it (and the reasons), not to construct artificial critics.

And at the end the DebConf is done by DDs, so generic critics to DebConf
will cause less bids for next DebConfs so less choice. We win the bid
for only *one vote* (IIRC) and a lot of discussion, again *only one*
other candidate. I fear that the discussion of last days could force to
give up teams for next DebConf (which is IMO again /classic/ DebConf).
What was the last non-govern-sponsored DebConf without financial
troubles? DC7? So people: don't make a difficult job impossible

*Help us: sponsoring DebConf13 and biding for DebConf in 2014 and 2015*

ciao
cate


PS: Josselin: at the beginning of the mail I referred to you, but then
it was more generic. Don't take it too personal.


-- 
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/50bef756.20...@debian.org

Re: [Debconf-discuss] ...

[MJ Ray]

Leandro Gómez 
> Yes, please stop this nonsense!

OK, sure, but could everyone also please stop this sort of nonsense:

> If you haven't been part of local team organizing a DebConf, you don't know
> how frustrating and demoralizing this kind of discussion is. [...]

and (quoting Gunnar Wolf):

> we should
> have a talk about this kind of topics. Maybe as a DebConf session,

Both of those are rather bizarre concepts which will probably lead to
a feedback loop, because mainly people who agree with how DebConf is
currently organised will help organise one; and mainly people who
DebConf currently serves will attend one.

This is a far better idea and I commend it to everyone:

> maybe as a mail thread during a quieter period.

Anyone like to suggest when that quieter period might be?

(back to quoting Leandro):

> Please use your time and energy on something more productive and urgent.
> Like helping the local team to make DebConf13 a success.

I think I disagree with the current organisation processes but this
isn't the time for specifics.  So I wish you all the best in making
the event a success and hope that all those involved find it
rewarding, but I'm going to work on other things instead.  (This is
sometimes called a yellow light, or stand-aside.)

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
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/e1tg1w6-x9...@petrol.towers.org.uk

Re: [Debconf-discuss-discuss-discuss-and-keep-discussing] ...

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 04 décembre 2012 à 13:38 -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
> People, (most of) the Swiss team is pissed with the lack of trust and
> lack of respect we have been showing for months already, and that now
> some very vocal outsiders (i.e. Debian people who are not involved in
> this year's DebConf organization) are showing. 

Is the “outsiders” word also meaning to describe people who were asked
for sponsorship and discovered later that the brochure they were sent
had almost nothing to do with what’s actually going on?

-- 
.''`.  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/1354657008.11540.4.camel@tomoe

Re: [Debconf-discuss-discuss-discuss-and-keep-discussing] ...

[Gunnar Wolf]

TL;DR ⇒ I'm sick of this discussion. I'm calling the DebConf chairs to
vote _NOW_ to sign or repeal the contract. I'm voting to
sign. (Do we need consensus between the three? Can we vote?)

I will probably do some netiquette breaches in this post... So,
apologies to all, but I think we are reaching a low record in the
quality of the discussion, and I don't want to risk this going even
worse. And yes, I'm keeping the quite offtopic d-project list in.

Holger Levsen dijo [Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:11:19PM +0100]:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm sick and saddened to read these mails and will not participate in any 
> further of this. 

In IRC, Holger asked me what did I think of this mail in the light of
the current mood of the whole team. And yes, since the shit-slinging
began (anew) some days ago, you might find it shocking that relatively
so few messages have been written by the people involved in the
organization and in the (so much attacked) LeCamp bid.

People, (most of) the Swiss team is pissed with the lack of trust and
lack of respect we have been showing for months already, and that now
some very vocal outsiders (i.e. Debian people who are not involved in
this year's DebConf organization) are showing. 

Holger is not the first person that sends an "I'm sick and
saddened...will not participate in any further..." message. Several
people have done it, with varying levels of meaning in the "will not
participate" part (from "I'm quitting this thread" to "fuck off,
organizing DebConf is for retards").

A while ago, my main argument for supporting to hold DebConf at LeCamp
instead of the several alternative venues that have been offered is
the social one. The level of mistrust of a very committed group of
long-term Debian developers, who have come up with a great proposal
for having a *different* venue, is really saddening. 

And then comes this nonsense about the veto. Were there an explicit
veto or not by the local team, I think the effect is obvious. Would
you expect any of them to work their asses off for organizing DebConf
for the next 8 months (plus the "cleanup phase", preparing the report,
and a big etcetera) if we decide to discard the proposals they
initially pushed, since the very presentation of the Swiss bid? Of
course not. And we cannot commit to having a DebConf organized by a
half-assed local team complaining that things would have been better
if we had listened to them all over.

There is people contributing lots of information that can lead to a
different venue/organization/setting. At first, we thanked them. And
yes, that information led to getting some things better WRT what we
are to get. But right now, just sending quotes of some random places
that might be OK for us to work in are no longer helping — to the
contrary, they are hurting. A lot.

We have got the LeCamp owners a good extension of time to sign a
contract. We have achieved several important modifications to the
contract. Most of the organizers agree we reached a decent compromise
and we were quite happy about this achievement during our last meeting
(or non-meeting, or whatever you want to call it), just before the
shit-slinging. What else do we need? We have only until this Friday to
hand in a signed contract. And I'm more than happy to approve it.

Many things are not as perfect as we would like. No DebConf will ever
be perfect. It is what it is, and sorry, if you don't like the setting
the Swiss team is proposing, maybe this is a good DebConf for you to
watch over the very nice video stream.

The DebConf chairs delegation was (much correctly IMO) split over
three people precisely to give more chance to arguments to be
weighed and more viewpoints to be listened to. And I think my two
co-chairs (and very good friends on a personal level) are great for
the task (and I'm also very happy I was chosen, and hope I am as good
for DebConf as they are). Moray has been very busy with non-DebConf
stuff during the past days, which is completely understandable... But
we cannot hold this much longer.

So, to reach a decision, we sometimes have to resort to voting. I am
very happy that in the Debian culture voting is given very low
precedence and consensus building is always prefered. But I think we
have reached that point.

So, lets stop hearing nonsense. My vote is an unambiguous and full
"yes" to signing the contract as it is now. We don't need any more
noise regarding alternative venues.

I know another point we have not decided as clearly as we should (as
the secret non-donation thing) is how should the chairs vote. Does
66% mean we can sign? Moray, I know you have some opposition, but I
feel it's not a general, all-out opposition. Please respond to this —
I don't want this to continue snowballing (thus keeping the insult to
the involved people). Many things still deserve our attention and can
be made better. But IMO if we choose not to sign, it will amount to
not having a DebConf this year. Or, at least, losing some very
important, v

Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Gunnar Wolf]

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

[Russ Allbery]

Ian Jackson  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)   


-- 
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: [Debconf-discuss] ...

[Leandro Gómez]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm sick and saddened to read these mails and will not participate in any
> further of this.
>
> Also, I cannot stop thinking "gigantic bikeshedding (mostly from people who
> never build one). And based on rumors of what the bikeshed is supposed to
> look, while not listening to the people who actually have seen this and
> other
> possible construction sites." - but sadly, DebConf is not a bikeshed (its
> slightly more complicated than that, cough) and Switzerland is not an easy
> place to hold a DebConf. Which we knew and took into consideration. Now
> basically claiming we are stupid is not only borderline insulting. But keep
> on... the greatest possible low has not yet been reached. We surely can do
> worse than this!
>
>
Yes, please stop this nonsense!

If you haven't been part of local team organizing a DebConf, you don't know
how frustrating and demoralizing this kind of discussion is. The local team
is working really hard on solving tons of issues, trying to organize a nice
and productive DebConf for us all, and when some people just throw shit at
the fan, the only thing you want to do is to give up and run away.

No money (loan or donation) has been accepted on behalf of DebConf. I think
this kind of discussion (about transparency) is important. But it can wait.
Please use your time and energy on something more productive and urgent.
Like helping the local team to make DebConf13 a success.



> (And I'm not saying/thinking/wanting to imply every concern is equal to
> claim
> we are stupid. By far not.)
>
> And, think what you want, you'll do this anyway.
>
>
> sad,
> Holger
>
>
> P.S.: and about the accomodation post from Joss: a.) those are _not_
> balanced
> examples for Le Camp, Le Camp is actually a pretty nice place compared to
> eg a
> youth hostel. (It's not a 4 star hotel though.)  b.) you havent seen the
> you
> youth hostel (and its tent village (and the showers there...!)) of our
> "alternative" in Interlaken, have you? and c.) are you aware that another
> alternative were/are bomb shelters? Switzerland is ridiculous expensive,
> that's *why* we choose Le Camp and why we did this so early.
> ___
> Debconf-discuss mailing list
> debconf-disc...@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss
>

Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Paul Tagliamonte]

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, , please.

Cheers,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte 
: :'  : 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]

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

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/12/12 18:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock  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 e

Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Russ Allbery]

Daniel Pocock  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

Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/12/12 17:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson  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

Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Russ Allbery]

Ian Jackson  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)   


-- 
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

[Ian Jackson]

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]

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

[Holger Levsen]

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: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Daniel Pocock]

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: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[Josselin Mouette]

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

[Josselin Mouette]

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

[Ian Jackson]

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

[Holger Levsen]

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

[Philipp Hug]

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

[Daniel Pocock]

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

[Philipp Hug]

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

[Daniel Pocock]

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

[Giacomo Catenazzi]

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

[Paul Tagliamonte]

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 
: :'  : 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

[Daniel Pocock]

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

[Holger Levsen]

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

Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13

[David Prévot]

-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)
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=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] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Joey Hess 

> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > Are you sure the first successful installation of Debian happened during
> > DebConf3?  I remember giving a talk about Skolelinux at that conference
> > and how Skolelinux used d-i to automate the Debian installation.  During
> > the talk I ran the installation as a demonstration, and I suspect I
> > would not have tried to do this if I had not done a d-i installation
> > before DebConf3.  But my memory is flaky, so I just wanted to ask if
> > anyone remember when d-i actually was able to install Debian for the
> > first time.
> 
> d-i was being used to install Skolelinux, at least as a proof of
> concept, a little before Debconf, but not to install Debian as far as I
> know. I had certianly not seen d-i install Debian before that point.

I did the first installation using d-i a few months before DC3, iirc.
I'm currently unable to find the IRC log where I told you about it,
though.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
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/87aa4huoul@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Joey Hess]

Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Are you sure the first successful installation of Debian happened during
> DebConf3?  I remember giving a talk about Skolelinux at that conference
> and how Skolelinux used d-i to automate the Debian installation.  During
> the talk I ran the installation as a demonstration, and I suspect I
> would not have tried to do this if I had not done a d-i installation
> before DebConf3.  But my memory is flaky, so I just wanted to ask if
> anyone remember when d-i actually was able to install Debian for the
> first time.

d-i was being used to install Skolelinux, at least as a proof of
concept, a little before Debconf, but not to install Debian as far as I
know. I had certianly not seen d-i install Debian before that point.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Joey Hess]

Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> "During DebConfN I wrote $cool-software which we now use to do
> $cool-things"

At DebConf3 in Oslo, I finally met the other Debian Installer developers
gathered together in person, and after a week of challanging work, we
achieved the first successful installation of Debian with it. This
reinvigorated our team, leading to many new members, more rapid
development, and many more developer gatherings. The resulting program
has since been used to install Debian, and derivative distributions, on
tens of millions of systems.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 04:22:02PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> Hi all,
> members of the Debconf Team and Publicity Team need your help!!1!! 
> 
> (nooo! don't hide!!)
> 
> We'd like to have a quote from all Debian Developers and contributors
> naming their most important technical and/or social achievement reached
> during past DebConfs.
> The quote need to be short (one or two lines) and could be something
> like:
> 
> "During DebConfN I wrote $cool-software which we now use to do
> $cool-things"

My biggest achievement at any debconf was to actually *be* at debconf5,
my first-ever debconf. At the time, I was having personal issues, and
was seriously considering resigning from the project. Someone (I forgot
whom) suggested that I could make it to debconf5 as a sponsored
attendee, and eventually convinced me.

The opportunity to see and meet all those people who were so passionate
about Debian, to see and meet them in a different setting, revived my
passion and fire for this community. I am convinced that I would not be
involved with Debian anymore today if I hadn't been at debconf5.

-- 
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a


-- 
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/20120215114928.gc23...@grep.be

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Luca Capello]

Hi there!

Please Cc: me, I am not subscribed to debian-project@.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:38:26 +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 05:10:27PM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
>> Francesca Ciceri wrote:
>> > members of the Debconf Team and Publicity Team need your help!!1!! 
>> > 
>> > (nooo! don't hide!!)
>> > 
>> > We'd like to have a quote from all Debian Developers and contributors
>> > naming their most important technical and/or social achievement reached
>> > during past DebConfs.
>> 
>> So where shall we send such quotes?
>
> In this thread? :)
> And I think could be better to -project instead that debconf-discuss
> (I've just set reply-to accordingly).

I would have preferred to have *all* replies to debconf-discuss@ as
well, I know of at least one of them that went to debian-project@ alone
(and no, I do not want to subscribed to yet another mailing list).

Nevertheless, I think my biggest achievement during past DebConfs is the
DebConf11 Events BoF, which generated a lot of discussion on various
mailing lists (debian-publicity@ and debian-www@ in primis) and in RL,
and it was the beginning for the Debian Events Box creation (which is
progressing slowly, but still...):

  
  

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca


pgpJ1iFa78IYs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Guido Trotter]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 16:32, Yaroslav Halchenko  wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 18:38, Francesca Ciceri  wrote:
>> (also, unrelated to me, just a suggestion for this campaign: it would
>> be good to get a quote from Eben Moglen about his freedombox talk at
>> Debconf10 and the impact it had, considering how the FreedomBox
>> foundation is heavily debian-populated)
>
> and may be also "Mark S" -- I believe U. was kinda conceived at debconf
> 2003 or so ;-)
>

That depends on the target audience... I'm not sure how many more
billionaires we'll convince to come and hire a bunch of DDs to create
their dream distro! :p Nor whether that should be encouraged! ;)

G


-- 
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/CAM4p=jn-30vcrsbjqeghur_ydmrkvlwkeuemys5czr7nncd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Yaroslav Halchenko]

> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 18:38, Francesca Ciceri  wrote:
> (also, unrelated to me, just a suggestion for this campaign: it would
> be good to get a quote from Eben Moglen about his freedombox talk at
> Debconf10 and the impact it had, considering how the FreedomBox
> foundation is heavily debian-populated)

and may be also "Mark S" -- I believe U. was kinda conceived at debconf
2003 or so ;-)

-- 
=--=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic


-- 
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/20120213153241.gn16...@onerussian.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Guido Trotter]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 18:38, Francesca Ciceri  wrote:

> In this thread? :)
> And I think could be better to -project instead that debconf-discuss
> (I've just set reply-to accordingly).
> Or, if you prefer send me a private reply at madamezou@d.o
>

During Debconf9 I gave a talk about our project. Then one of the
developers present found it could be used to solve some of their
problem at work.
Soon his organization became one of the most active contributors in
our community.

(also, unrelated to me, just a suggestion for this campaign: it would
be good to get a quote from Eben Moglen about his freedombox talk at
Debconf10 and the impact it had, considering how the FreedomBox
foundation is heavily debian-populated)

Thanks,

Guido


-- 
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/CAM4p=jphh0kt8djif_qesuh7cgwhuwsgowf1wihtt++bu23...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Kevin Mark]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 04:22:02PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> Hi all,
> members of the Debconf Team and Publicity Team need your help!!1!! 
> 
> (nooo! don't hide!!)
> 
> We'd like to have a quote from all Debian Developers and contributors
> naming their most important technical and/or social achievement reached
> during past DebConfs.
> The quote need to be short (one or two lines) and could be something
> like:
> 
> "During DebConfN I wrote $cool-software which we now use to do
> $cool-things"
> 
> Obviously, your best achievement could be also a patch, an important
> translation or a special BoF/talk/round-table.
> We want to use your responses to show the extreme variety of DebConf
> attendees and why this event is important for the FLOSS ecosystem.
> 
> Your quotes will be used to promote DebConf via identi.ca, the website,
> and official DebConf documents.
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> Francesca and Moray,
> for the Publicity and the DebConf Teams

I'm a FLOSS advocate who wanted to help Debian by helping make Debconf in NY
run smoothly and I volunteered to do Front Desk, Registration, etc.
It was great to work and socialize with other Debian contributers.

-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux ==.| http://kevix.myopenid.com..|
| : :' : The Universal OS| mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/.|
| `. `'   http://www.debian.org/.| http://counter.li.org [#238656]|
|___`-Unless I ask to be CCd,.assume I am subscribed._|

If you are too busy to read, then you are too busy.


-- 
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/20120212115603.GA4155@horacrux

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[David Bremner]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:38:26 +0100, Francesca Ciceri  
wrote:

> > > We'd like to have a quote from all Debian Developers and contributors
> > > naming their most important technical and/or social achievement reached
> > > during past DebConfs.

After talking about the conversion for several years on mail and IRC,
with a little bit of preparation the Debian Perl team managed to convert
almost 2000 packages from a monolithic subversion repository into
individual git repositories.  Being together in Banja Luka made it
possible to fix the few wrinkles that arose, and to develop some new
tools to keep the team working smoothly.


-- 
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/87lio9z06x@rocinante.cs.unb.ca

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Karolina Kalic]

Hi Francesca,

During DebConf11 I've met my new, permanent, sponsor (Guido Trotter)
and we have a great collaboration since then!

Karolina Kalic

Is this good?

Greetings,
Karolina


-- 
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/cadh3fjmkw2qyy5uyg+wzceawhmfzbtqcu3gzg00xkinvkqb...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Francesca Ciceri (madame...@debian.org):
> Hey Axel, 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 05:10:27PM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> > > members of the Debconf Team and Publicity Team need your help!!1!! 
> > > 
> > > (nooo! don't hide!!)
> > > 
> > > We'd like to have a quote from all Debian Developers and contributors
> > > naming their most important technical and/or social achievement reached
> > > during past DebConfs.
> > 
> > So where shall we send such quotes?
> > 
> > Regards, Axel
> 
> In this thread? :)
> And I think could be better to -project instead that debconf-discuss
> (I've just set reply-to accordingly).
> Or, if you prefer send me a private reply at madamezou@d.o

In DebConf4, I spent days and nights improving the Debian Installer
localization infrastructure. Eight years after, most of these
achievements are still used to help translating the installation
system in more than 70 languages.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Francesca Ciceri]

Hey Axel, 

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 05:10:27PM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> > members of the Debconf Team and Publicity Team need your help!!1!! 
> > 
> > (nooo! don't hide!!)
> > 
> > We'd like to have a quote from all Debian Developers and contributors
> > naming their most important technical and/or social achievement reached
> > during past DebConfs.
> 
> So where shall we send such quotes?
> 
>   Regards, Axel

In this thread? :)
And I think could be better to -project instead that debconf-discuss
(I've just set reply-to accordingly).
Or, if you prefer send me a private reply at madamezou@d.o


Cheers,
Francesca
-- 
"Nostra patria è il mondo intero
e nostra legge è la libertà
ed un pensiero
ribelle in cor ci sta." P.Gori


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

[Axel Beckert]

Hi,

Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> members of the Debconf Team and Publicity Team need your help!!1!! 
> 
> (nooo! don't hide!!)
> 
> We'd like to have a quote from all Debian Developers and contributors
> naming their most important technical and/or social achievement reached
> during past DebConfs.

So where shall we send such quotes?

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-|  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5


-- 
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/20120211161026.gk25...@sym.noone.org

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Rocking Venezuelans

[Aníbal Monsalve Salazar]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:04:01AM -0400, Jose Parrella wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:59:10AM +0200, Enrico Zini escribió:
>>
>>A little ago I've read the news that Venezuela is going to train 40
>>people on basic Linux use.  Four hundred thousands.  YOU ROCK!
>>
>>The courses were due to start on June, 12th, which is two days ago.
>>
>>I'm very curious about it.  How are they going?
>
>There are actually three programs right now. The first one is the Free
>Software Academy, which is not so big (aimed to groups of 50 people per
>month or so) but is getting stronger in the countryside. The second is
>the Free Software Laboratory which is an opportunity for everyone in the
>Free Software community to participate in the process of migrating the
>Public Administration. The third one is the Technological Literacy
>program, aiming to teach people how to use a computer using GNU/Linux
>(specifically Gnome). You said 400K people will be trained, politicians
>said 2 million people will [1] (in spanish).
>
>About the first program, it's working for almost a year now. It has
>local chapters in several cities and the curricula was studied by the
>Pedagogic University for compliance with teaching standards. The
>Laboratory is now approved by decree, yet still is not clear how the
>community will participate on that. The Literacy program has not
>practically initiated, but they're migrating the remaining Internet
>cafes to GNU/Linux so they have the infrastructure to go on with the
>program.
>
>On June 11th., the director of the IT National Center said that the
>"migration process should choose between the thoroughly tested and
>renowned Red Hat, SuSe and Debian", which is an advance considering that
>the previous director of his office made a statement promoting Red Hat
>as the distribution of choice. He was fired right the way. Yesterday, at
>the Department of Science and Technology, I found out that the whole IT
>Office is using Debian. From security people to the big bosses, everyone
>there uses Debian. They even have their own mirror, and everyone is
>Synaptic-ing packages without yelling about lack of support :)
>
>Jose
>
>[1]
>http://lubrio.blogspot.com/2006/06/plan-de-alfabetizacin-tecnolgica-del.html

Sending this to -project.

Best Regards,

Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
-- 
http://v7w.com/anibal


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature