Re: Costs of running a Debian foundation
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:46:09PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > So I'm more satisfied with the rationale of creating a Debian > foundation, although my concerns about the actual operations still > apply (i.e. how are you going to make sure you'll do a better job than > the TOs you're not happy with when there have been countless failures > of running non-profits in the past). I have to say that I share those concerns. Specifically, I believe that SPI was meant to be our foundation. That it grew into something more, and that it took several years for it to do what we needed it to do is unfortunate; but there is no reason to assume, from my point of view at least, that building another foundation to do what SPI couldn't do, will bring us more success. Brian, what's your view on that? -- Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > The idea of having a Debian Foundation sounds interesting, although I do > share some of tbm's fears. > > From what I understand, you want this DPL election to be a referendum on > the idea of a Debian Foundation. > > It would be really hard for me to vote for you without having a clearer > idea of what that would entail for Debian, especially in terms of costs. > It feels a bit like signing a blank check and hoping things go well. The DPL is bound to operate under the constitution, and would still need to follow 5.1.19, so you wouldn't be signing a "blank check". "In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.). Such decisions are communicated to the members by the Project Leader or their Delegate(s). Major expenditures should be proposed and debated on the mailing list before funds are disbursed." > I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian > Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks. You are correct. It's going to take 6-12 months of work to create the foundation, and that includes drafting by-laws. > In another email you write: > > > 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require > > any changes to the constitution > > I'd be much more inclined to vote for you if you promised you would in > fact propose a GR on this once elected. > > It would give you (and others who want to help) time to come up with a > solid plan and let the Debian community be the final judge. I'd like to understand this request more. We have three trusted organizations (two of which have Debian in their names), and we didn't have a GR to form them or make them TOs. The GR to do what I am proposing already passed in 2006. [1] If it turns out that additional constitutional changes are required, of course, I'd seek out a GR. Would you be happy with the following commitments instead of a commitment to propose a GR? 1) Share any proposed drafts for the organization's by-laws w/ debian-project for feedback, and consensus-building? 2) Consult with Project Members on a budget for hiring the administrative staff (As would be expected by the constitution) I was trying to put my finger on what it is I don't love about GRs, and I think it's the conflict between having a time-limited conversation and giving everyone a chance to have their say. This can end up with everyone rushing to say what they want to say, in a stressful compressed marathon sprint of discussion. I much prefer open-ended discussions that either end in consensus or with an agreement that consensus is unlikely to be reached. Of course some things require a GR, but I'd hope that consensus was largely already built prior to starting the GR process. Thanks, Brian [1] - https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_003 > Cheers, > > -- > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org > ⠈⠳⣄ > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Costs of running a Debian foundation
* Brian Gupta [2020-03-17 12:15]: > I don't think it would be "cheaper" to run our own foundation, and > might even end up costing more. I hope I didn't give that impression > from my platform. > > Largely I believe the Debian Project is large enough and mature > enough that we need dedicated purpose entities that we have more > direct control over. Thanks for that clarification. And no, your platform doesn't give that impression. I should have given more context when posting my email to make it clearer that some of my questions were based on comments Brian previously made in person a few weeks ago and not on what's in his platform. It seems Brian's thinking has changed since those comments were made (from "SPI is too expensive" to "we're big enough and need more control"). I think these reasons make much more sense for a foundation, and it's in line with Sam's arguments; unfortunately I don't think the platform does a good job of setting out the reasons why Debian should have its own org (it mostly focuses on unhappiness with the current TO structure and the service of several TOs.) So I'm more satisfied with the rationale of creating a Debian foundation, although my concerns about the actual operations still apply (i.e. how are you going to make sure you'll do a better job than the TOs you're not happy with when there have been countless failures of running non-profits in the past). -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: Question to all: Outreach
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:32 PM Hector Oron wrote: > > Hello, > > First of all, thanks for nominating yourselves to Debian project leaders. > > Debian Outreach looks like an awesome initiative to bring new blood > into Debian and also people coming from minority groups, however, on > the other hand, it has been a quite expensive to run for the real > benefit provided to Debian project. Reading the delegation text: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00011.html. > I find 2 out of 3 team coordinators are not Debian > contributors/developers, and the other seems to be inactive. > > Q: How do you feel on having non-Debian contributors/developers > being DPL delegates? While I'm perfectly happy with non-project members being members of delegated Debian teams, the Constitution is pretty clear that delegations must be to other Project Members. "The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the Technical Committee." I read this to mean that delegated teams must have at least one Debian Project Member. (At least not without a change in the constitution which is a change I would not support.) In your specific example, I believe that we need to check in with the existing delegate and see if they are in fact inactive and if they are inactive, we'd need to create a new delegation. > Q: Do you see any flaws on the current Outreach setup? If so, how > would you address them? Other than your suggestion that the team Delegate may be inactive, I don't know enough about the current Outreach setup, to know where there might be areas in need of improvement. If I am elected to DPL, I'd be happy to have a discussion with you and the team, and will certainly reach out to the Delegate. I will say that I do generally support Debian's participation in this program, and have helped fundraise for it in the past. I also believe that there is a fairly strong project consensus to support internship programs like Outreach and GSoC. Cheers, Brian > My best regards, > -- > Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-. > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hello, Missatge de Ulrike Uhlig del dia dt., 17 de març 2020 a les 21:46: > (I have no idea if I am allowed to reply to this, or if only DPL > candidates are supposed to reply. Hence forgive me if I'm overstepping a > boundary here. Please tell me if that is the case by the way.) [Thread moved to debian-project mailing list for open discussion] -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hi, (I have no idea if I am allowed to reply to this, or if only DPL candidates are supposed to reply. Hence forgive me if I'm overstepping a boundary here. Please tell me if that is the case by the way.) On 17.03.20 21:07, Hector Oron wrote: > Missatge de Ulrike Uhlig del dia dt., 17 de març > 2020 a les 18:34: > >>> Debian Outreach [...] >>> thas been a quite expensive to run for the real >>> benefit provided to Debian project. >> >> The questions you ask seem to rely on this observation of yours, that I >> find a little bit overly suggestive: >> >> - How do you measure benefit? And what is real or unreal about it? >> - And to what does "quite expensive" refer? > I have been trying to measure the return from such program but looking > at their mailing list for information, > https://lists.debian.org/debian-outreach/ > does not lead to any results or information. Maybe I am looking at the > wrong space? In which role (or with which hat) have you been trying to measure the return? And by return, do you specifically refer to the term return on investment? As a former Outreachy intern myself (2015) I can tell you that it the stipend has helped me to invest time to find my way around Debian, time during which otherwise I would have had to earn a living elsewhere and would never have gotten involved further with Debian. There are many people in Debian who were GSoC students and are active Debian contributors, DMs, DDs. In which way does Outreachy differ from GSoC from a Debian point of view - besides the fact that it explicitly encourages people from underrepresented communities and non-students? And if Outreachy/GSoC has had positive results for people who stay involved in Debian after their internship, what is this due to? I'm not aware if there has been an evaluation or feedback cycle internally on what worked well and what did not work well. As a hypothetic example, it could well be that a mentor did not introduce Outreachy interns to the larger Debian community, processes, mailing lists, people and so on. I use this as an example to show that the cost-benefit ratio of such a program is not something that can be statistically measured easily, but could be due to a variety of factors. > I find really helpful the work those students are doing, but given > that has a cost, is it perfect? are there ways to improve? I would > really love to know next DPL view on the matter. I'll read their replies with curiosity. (And will now totally shut up with comments. :D) Best, Ulrike
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hello, Missatge de Ulrike Uhlig del dia dt., 17 de març 2020 a les 18:34: > > Debian Outreach [...] > > thas been a quite expensive to run for the real > > benefit provided to Debian project. > > The questions you ask seem to rely on this observation of yours, that I > find a little bit overly suggestive: > > - How do you measure benefit? And what is real or unreal about it? > - And to what does "quite expensive" refer? Thanks Ulrike for bringing up this point. According to https://www.outreachy.org/sponsor/ Outreach student has a cost of $6,500. Last round, from December 2019 to March 2020, Debian got a couple students, making a total cost of $13,000. Add on top of that travel sponsorship for promoting for promoting Debian Outreach coordinators (which I believe are not Debian contributors nor developers, please correct me if I am wrong) on finding students in conferences, which cost few other thousands in the past year. The total cost was well above $20k for Debian, just for one round. I find it "quite expensive" when comparing to volunteers work, but I would like to know the opinion of the postulated DPLs on that matter. I have been trying to measure the return from such program but looking at their mailing list for information, https://lists.debian.org/debian-outreach/ does not lead to any results or information. Maybe I am looking at the wrong space? Reading news, https://bits.debian.org/2019/11/welcome-outreachy-interns-2019-2020.html I find really helpful the work those students are doing, but given that has a cost, is it perfect? are there ways to improve? I would really love to know next DPL view on the matter. My best wishes, -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.
Re: Question to all: Outreach
Hi! On 17.03.20 17:32, Hector Oron wrote: > Debian Outreach [...] > thas been a quite expensive to run for the real > benefit provided to Debian project. The questions you ask seem to rely on this observation of yours, that I find a little bit overly suggestive: - How do you measure benefit? And what is real or unreal about it? - And to what does "quite expensive" refer? Thank you, Ulrike
Re: Please hold your questions...
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:14:13AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Louis-Philippe Véronneau dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:10:31PM -0400]: > > I'm not sure what this is then? > > > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/ > > Uh... > > Er... > > Oh... > > OK, I stand corrected. Please, excuse my mail. (where was this > announced? My bad, for sure!) On d-d-a, today. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Please hold your questions...
* Gunnar Wolf [2020-03-17 11:04]: > We already have <10 mails in the list... Please wait for the Project > Secretary to announce the page for the elections, with the platforms > and all. All platforms are available and it has been announced. https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/vote_001 -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
Re: Please hold your questions...
Louis-Philippe Véronneau dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:10:31PM -0400]: > I'm not sure what this is then? > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/ Uh... Er... Oh... OK, I stand corrected. Please, excuse my mail. (where was this announced? My bad, for sure!) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Please hold your questions...
On 20-03-17 13 h 04, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Hello all, > > While I have started to read the questions to the candidates with > enthusiasm, I'd like to point something out: Jonathan's and Brian's > nomination mails _can_be_seen_as_ a platform, but they are nor (and I > don't know if they intend to refine them to be a platform. > > Sruthi has not yet published a platform. > > And, as Kurt answered to Sam's mail asking Jonathan why he > self-nominated with such a lengthy mail: > > Message-id: <[] 20200312130158.ga3821...@roeckx.be> > I would like to get a platform I can put on the website, there is > no reason mail it to this list. > > I would very much like to try and have the questions regarding > campaigning to start fairly. > > We already have <10 mails in the list... Please wait for the Project > Secretary to announce the page for the elections, with the platforms > and all. I'm not sure what this is then? https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/ -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Please hold your questions...
Hello all, While I have started to read the questions to the candidates with enthusiasm, I'd like to point something out: Jonathan's and Brian's nomination mails _can_be_seen_as_ a platform, but they are nor (and I don't know if they intend to refine them to be a platform. Sruthi has not yet published a platform. And, as Kurt answered to Sam's mail asking Jonathan why he self-nominated with such a lengthy mail: Message-id: <[] 20200312130158.ga3821...@roeckx.be> I would like to get a platform I can put on the website, there is no reason mail it to this list. I would very much like to try and have the questions regarding campaigning to start fairly. We already have <10 mails in the list... Please wait for the Project Secretary to announce the page for the elections, with the platforms and all. Thanks! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?
Hi Brian, The idea of having a Debian Foundation sounds interesting, although I do share some of tbm's fears. From what I understand, you want this DPL election to be a referendum on the idea of a Debian Foundation. It would be really hard for me to vote for you without having a clearer idea of what that would entail for Debian, especially in terms of costs. It feels a bit like signing a blank check and hoping things go well. I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks. In another email you write: > 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require > any changes to the constitution I'd be much more inclined to vote for you if you promised you would in fact propose a GR on this once elected. It would give you (and others who want to help) time to come up with a solid plan and let the Debian community be the final judge. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Question to all: Outreach
Hello, First of all, thanks for nominating yourselves to Debian project leaders. Debian Outreach looks like an awesome initiative to bring new blood into Debian and also people coming from minority groups, however, on the other hand, it has been a quite expensive to run for the real benefit provided to Debian project. Reading the delegation text: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00011.html. I find 2 out of 3 team coordinators are not Debian contributors/developers, and the other seems to be inactive. Q: How do you feel on having non-Debian contributors/developers being DPL delegates? Q: Do you see any flaws on the current Outreach setup? If so, how would you address them? My best regards, -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.
Re: Costs of running a Debian foundation
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 8:20 AM Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > [ I wasn't sure whether to comment on Brian's platform or stay out of > this, but I think it's important to scrutinise the plan. Please see > my disclaimers at the end though. ] Thank you Martin. You have a great amount of relevant experience. Your feedback and questions are very much appreciated. > Brian, > > * You write: "Debian Project Leaders should have more time to lead > rather than be buried in the set of administrative tasks they > currently face" > > It's not clear to that I follow this argument. Right now, the DPL and > treasurer team only have to maintain a relationship with a third party > (the TO). Isn't that *less* work than overseeing your own > organization? In the past, when we had a struggling TO, we'd have to engage volunteers to help, and not just help for Debian, but help the overall TO, so we needed to find volunteers that wanted to help a non-profit with a wide mandate. Speaaing only for myself, but one of the things that have held me back over the years from volunteering for SPI, beyond the very narrowly-focused work I did to establish Paypal accounts, were the requirements to support an ever-growing number of non-Debian projects. Also, it's not just maintaining a 3rd-party relationship. In SPI's case, half the board is currently Debian members, which is why I initially couldn't understand the reasoning behind the overall push to end special treatment for Debian. I came to realize that as Free Software advocates, we have a commitment to fairness and that is honorable. Thinking about it from the mandate of SPI, I can't find fault in the choices that SPI's board took to seek equality between projects. However, I also came to strongly believe that Debian needs dedicated-purpose entities that are aligned with Debian's special needs. > * You argue that "history has shown that volunteers alone aren’t > enough" and that "difficult to find enough people to volunteer to do > these things". > > I would agree with this. And having done both volunteer and paid work > in this area, I can attest that there's a limit on how much admin work > someone will do as a volunteer. > > However, Debian has historically had a rather strained relationship > with paid work. One could argue that the current Debian / SPI > relationship works because Debian is paying a service provider. But > if Debian were to have its own foundation, you could argue that the > topic of Debian paying people will come up again. > > You make a good point that admin work is different. But will everyone > agree? If Debian starts paying for admin work, why not pay for other > activities where it's been hard to find work? > > Maybe some would agree that this is actually a good path to go, and > that a Debian Foundation would lead to more paid opportunities in the > future, but I think you could easily see this as a source of much > disagreement. > > How would you address that? You make a good point, and touch on the one main area that I think might be controversial. However, I believe Debian has evolved over the years, to where this might not be as controversial as it was in the past, especially if we look at it in the narrow area of administrative work. I believe out views have evolved for a few reasons: 1) We have now accepted 3rd-party paid help from SPI and it's definitely improved service levels. It would be an artificial distinction to not consider it for a Debian Foundation. 2) It's now largely uncontroversial that Debian funds are directed to "paid work", in the form of Outreachy sponsorship. 3) It's been a long time. We've seen what works well with volunteer work, and what doesn't. I of course fully understand that having our own Foundation(s) could open up future discussions about paid technical work, but that probably should be a separate discussion, as that's not why I am advocating for this. (For the record, I have mixed feelings about paid technical work, and only feel we should ever consider it, where there is a strong consensus to do so.) > Also, who is going to decide who to hire/contract? The Foundation's board, which would include the DPL. I'll say now that someone with your background would be near the top of my list of candidates. > * "the DPL is no longer a special member of SPI invited to all meetings": > > I have to give some context on this (BTW, I don't speak for SPI, but > I'm a SPI member like anyone in Debian can become). SPI used to have > 2 board advisors: a representative from PostgreSQL and the current > DPL. At some point SPI said: > > * We haven't used these advisors in years > * Why pick advisors from 2 big projects when SPI serves all associated > projects? > * SPI's meetings are open: let's encourage everyone to participate > > So let me ask this: why hasn't the DPL (or a representative) attended > the public SPI IRC meetings? Registered guests are mentioned in the > minutes and I don't
Why I think We Probably Want a foundation
TL;DR: I think Debian probably wants a foundation for legal protection. I think doing this as a DPL platform is all sorts of wrong. I'm speaking as an individual, although my thoughts are influenced by my time as DPL. Hi. I've generally been coming to the conclusion that we probably need to have a foundation, but my reasoning is different than Brian's. I'd first like to address our relationship with SPI. Martin asks why DPLs haven't been attending the SPI meetings. For myself two reasons. First, I never thought of doing so. If it makes it way into the DPL hand-off notes as something to consider, then I probably would have at least shown up and introduced myself. Honestly, though, from the DPL standpoint I am not at all sure the DPL really needs to get involved. Presumably Chris did attend the SPI board meetings at least once he was elected to the board:-) When I look at http://spi-inc.org/corporate/board/ I see a lot of familiar names. Three of the five board members are clearly heavily involved in Debian. And I think I've seen a couple of those officers around too in my Debian work:-) So if Debian has some concerns to work through--and we do have a couple--we can and should bring them up with the SPI board. My interactions with the SPI board fall into one of two categories: 1) When I've asked for achievable things or given feedback, I've gotten reasonably prompt answers. 2) balls got dropped. As an example we'd like to understand the implications of a SPI project working with/taking money from Huawei. That's complex and the board dropped my question with no answer. I believe a couple of others also asked this question. I'll write to -project separately about the handling of DebConf donations. My big concern is legal liability for people contributing to Debian. I understand that to some extent I'm bringing up an issue that has been making the rounds on certain blogs. I'd like to think that I and we can discuss it more constructively here. What we tell ourselves is that Debian has no legal existence. We're part of SPI, and so we hope that we'd have the same protections as volunteers working for any non-profit. When representing Debian and SPI, the Software Freedom Law Center is very careful to advance this argument as much as possible. But there are alternative ways to look at things. At Libreplanet 2018, I was talking to a lawyer (not receiving legal advice--just a hallway conversation) who I respect. He said that if he wanted to go after Debian, he'd argue that we are a non-incorporated association. That might well mean that all our leaders are liable for all the actions of Debian. I'm not a lawyer. But if someone wanted to make that argument we'd have a fight in court as each individually named defendant tried to argue that they were just acting as a volunteer on a SPI project and tried to get the case dismissed against them. That sounds kind of unfun. There have certainly been things I've done as DPL where I really wish I had better confidence that I am a volunteer for an organized non-profit. I'll certainly note that Debian as an unincorporated association is a lot easier to understand than some more complex story. Perhaps if Debian were just a SPI project it would be easy to explain. Except what about Debian France? Are we a SPI project that happens to have assets held by Debian France? Why would we do that if we're a SPI project? Or are we somehow a SPI project *and* a Debian France project? But wait, how can that work. Recently, SPI introduced Debian to another lawyer. Now even SPI is advancing the idea that Debian has enough independent existence: the vice president recommended that I sign an agreement on behalf of Debian while SPI signed an agreement on their behalf managing any potential conflict of interest that might come up. I think I'm going to be able to avoid that situation and leave it entirely to the next DPL. I'll say that if Debian is legally just part of SPI, it doesn't make sense for Debian to be signing agreements with itself. If Debian is more than just part of SPI, I want that more to be a kind of legal entity that has protection for its officers and volunteers. I don't want the separation between SPI and Debian to be a way for counter-parties to attack us as individuals. And while we're at it, some insurance would be really nice. While working in the IETF, I had insurance. If I made a mistake as a working group chair or IANA expert--let's say related to a patent matter or some antitrust matter--there was insurance to help defend my actions. As DPL, there's no insurance at all. There's no insurance if ftpmaster members make an error around copyright, or if DAM or other parties make an error. Yeah, insurance costs money. It's not clear that Debian's recurring income supports getting the insurance I wish we had. But yet, if we went to our community and demonstrated we would spend that money to
Debian's paypal account
My recollection of the conversation regarding Debian's paypal account (over a social dinner, where spit-balling on a variety of topics was underway) is that a hypothetical was posed: If SPI can't offer paypal accounts to all projects due to paypal restrictions on number of accounts, then maybe no project should have one via SPI. It was meant to trigger a conversation about how SPI is trying to offer equivalent services to projects, not just to the first one one through the door with a good idea (another example is Slack for Nonprofits.) Anyway, after some back-and-forth, the conversation ended with: SPI needs to find a way to offer paypal services (or similar) to the other projects. This might mean restructuring things but definitely not taking a service / capability away from Debian. I think that this didn't register with all parties of that conversation, resulting in different take-away impressions. As a member and not an officer of it, I don't speak for SPI's Baord. -- Luca Filipozzi
Costs of running a Debian foundation
[ I wasn't sure whether to comment on Brian's platform or stay out of this, but I think it's important to scrutinise the plan. Please see my disclaimers at the end though. ] Brian, * You write: "Debian Project Leaders should have more time to lead rather than be buried in the set of administrative tasks they currently face" It's not clear to that I follow this argument. Right now, the DPL and treasurer team only have to maintain a relationship with a third party (the TO). Isn't that *less* work than overseeing your own organization? * You argue that "history has shown that volunteers alone aren’t enough" and that "difficult to find enough people to volunteer to do these things". I would agree with this. And having done both volunteer and paid work in this area, I can attest that there's a limit on how much admin work someone will do as a volunteer. However, Debian has historically had a rather strained relationship with paid work. One could argue that the current Debian / SPI relationship works because Debian is paying a service provider. But if Debian were to have its own foundation, you could argue that the topic of Debian paying people will come up again. You make a good point that admin work is different. But will everyone agree? If Debian starts paying for admin work, why not pay for other activities where it's been hard to find work? Maybe some would agree that this is actually a good path to go, and that a Debian Foundation would lead to more paid opportunities in the future, but I think you could easily see this as a source of much disagreement. How would you address that? Also, who is going to decide who to hire/contract? * "the DPL is no longer a special member of SPI invited to all meetings": I have to give some context on this (BTW, I don't speak for SPI, but I'm a SPI member like anyone in Debian can become). SPI used to have 2 board advisors: a representative from PostgreSQL and the current DPL. At some point SPI said: * We haven't used these advisors in years * Why pick advisors from 2 big projects when SPI serves all associated projects? * SPI's meetings are open: let's encourage everyone to participate So let me ask this: why hasn't the DPL (or a representative) attended the public SPI IRC meetings? Registered guests are mentioned in the minutes and I don't see anyone officially representing Debian. Why didn't the DPL(s) actively pursue their advisor role? * "without informing us, after 10 years of de facto practice, SPI stopped waiving their standard 5% fees on DebConf sponsorship payments" So basically this is the crux of Brian's platform. He's upset that SPI is charging their standard 5% fee on DebConf sponsorship. (And there are important questions about this change, but I think that doesn't actually matter in this context.) What matters in my view: why do you think that 0 fees should be charged on DebConf sponsorship? And how does that square with your argument that this work can't be done by volunteers. On the one hand, you argue that this needs to be paid work. On the other hand, you are upset that SPI is charging for its work. Well, I don't think you can have it both ways. Of course, this issue would go away with a Debian Foundation, but how much is that going to cost to run? Definitely not 0 since you suggest paid staff. Less than 5%? More? Fundamentally, I think you underestimate how much work it is to run a non-profit properly, and therefore how much it would cost. Have you done some numbers? How much income does Debian have each year? How much would an admin of this Debian Foundation cost? What other fees and expenses are there? Legal fees? Trademark fees? What about an external audit? This isn't explicitly in Brian's platform but he seems to believe that Debian could do it better and/or cheaper. Is there any evidence for this? Have you looked at other FOSS non-profits to see what they cost to run? Are you saying a Debian Foundation makes sense even if it's more expensive to run than paying a third party provider? (Maybe there are other benefits that would justify the cost of bringing this in house.) Martin P.S. I'm not saying there is no merit in a Debian Foundation. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. (And there are definitely things I don't like about the TO arrangement that would go away with a Debian Foundation.) My big concern is that in my view Brian completely underestimates the work and cost involved in doing this properly, and that it will just end up in yet another non-functioning non-profit. I've seen to many time people starting new non-profits to solve all problems and they just end up creating more (and similar) problems. Disclaimers: * I served on the board of the Open Source Imitative, Software Freedom Conservancy and Software in the Public Interest: I know that it's hard to run a non-profit. * I'm currently a paid contractor of SPI, so you can argue that I'm biased because of my income depends on
Re: Question to Jonathan: how do you intend to prioritise?
Hi Sean On 2020/03/17 00:18, Sean Whitton wrote: > It is good that you have shared with us all, in your platform, your > broad vision for what it is most important for the project to address. > No-one could reasonably expect you to complete everything there in a > single term, but it helps us choose how to vote if we have a more > complete idea of where you think the project stands. > > I would also like to know, however, what you seek to prioritise -- which > parts of your platform are a matter of you sharing with us your long > term vision, and which parts do you actively plan to accomplish in the > next twelve months? Great question, thanks! I'll try to explain it without throughing more bullet points at you while at the same time navigating all the clichés that exist for so many good reasons. By the end of the term, I would like to have a shared sense of 'business as usual' within the project. I'd like our contributors and project members to have a sense of belonging, and that they can focus on their work and improve Debian's technical excellence without having to spend too much time on unproductive drama. I know that sounds incredibly broad, and at the same time somewhat vague, but I believe it's what the project needs right now. I very purposely want to avoid big, potentially damaging and controversial GRs or discussions that will divide our community. I know that those are sometimes necessary and I won't shy away from them when they are necessary, but I don't think we need to make particularly huge project-wide changes in the short term. I think Brian's Debian Foundation ideas are good, and even though he doesn't think that that should be a GR, I do. It seems big enough that project members should have an explicit vote on both if and how this should happen, especially, for just one example, if assets like trademarks will be transferred to one of these new Foundations. It's a big enough change that we should do it properly and involve all stakeholders within the project. Overall, I want us to work better as a community, I don't particularly care exactly how we get there. I do think that my current list of ideas is a good starting point, and I hope that project members will feel comfortable to approach me with their own ideas on how we can build on and improve our community. I also intend to be available, present and approachable, and when any new problem crops up, I want to be able to help deal with those swiftly without having my head stuck in 10 rabbit holes of different projects that I'm trying to finish before my term ends. > Right now, the most concrete part of your platform is pushing forward > changing our nomenclature for project members. So when I reached the > end of your platform, it seemed to me that this was the only thing in it > I could be sure you intend to pursue, if elected, over the next year. > And surely this was not the impression you intended the platform to have > on your readers :) Indeed. Full disclosure: I was writing that platform in a hurry while I had a cold, so I did have a tough time getting all my points across properly. My platform was initially very long, so I ended up cutting out a lot, including some explanation, but I'll expand a bit below... > Please help me get a more concrete idea of what sort of project-level > changes I could expect you to attempt if you were elected. Thanks! This gets a bit more complicated because I tend to pursue the more concrete project-level stuff whether I'm DPL or not, but let's jump into some concrete aspects of my vision anyway... In terms of improving online participation this has been something that myself, Rhonda and paddatrapper have already invested some time in. We haven't formally announced it yet within the project (we're likely to send an announcement to d-d-a within the next 1-2 weeks) about a new project called debian.social. Even though it's not yet announced, it's not a secret either and you can read a bit more about it on our wiki page: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianSocial debian.social would just be one leg of improving communication and online collaboration. An idea that I had after I finished my platform, that I've been enjoying thinking of, is to start a team for a MiniDebConf Online. The situation with COVID-19 means that many conferences over for at least the next two months will be cancelled, so maybe we could put all our online tools (including tools like storm.debian.net) to the test and see if we could actually pull off having an online MiniDebConf. I think it will help make a lot of people feel better giving them a bit of a social lift with all the physical distancing we have to practice, and at the same time we can improve Debian, and find weak spots in our tooling that we can improve. Evaluation of these tools are also already happening, Kyle has written a nice summary of some of the shortcomings in Jitsi: https://writefreely.debian.social/paddatrapper/remote-conference-software -