Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix, It seems there's much more behind the scenes than I happen to know... So, with the little context I have, I keep believing that your reimbursement request is appropriate. And, for *just* not following the proper procedure, such a request shouldn't be ultimately refused, IMO. Bests, -- Tiago On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:47:10PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Tiago, > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:09 AM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz > wrote: > > > > Given that Jonathan, after lots of research as he describes in this > > thread, has stated that such request never reached him, can you clarify > > how can you have even complied to a request for more information from him? > > > > Also, if that's the case, why didn't you try to reach him in private at > > the time rather than bringing it to -vote months later, during an DPL > > campaign period in which you are both candidates? > > > > In my view, your request was totally eligible and could/should be > > quickly approved. > > Look, the discussion with Richard was about the process for > disbursements. I like the idea of committees that are on schedule and > open to the public. > > Despite the collateral damage Jonathan suffered for the missing > reimbursement (which people in power have to endure) I did not intend > to embarrass him, yet that's where we are taking this thread. > > Jonathan is a busy guy. In fact, he is so busy he too would benefit if > other folks handled the disbursements. It would be a win-win for > everyone. > > My messages may also have gotten stuck in Jonathan's spam filter. > > It furthermore seems that I did not follow the proper process when > filing my request, as Paul Wise pointed out. > > Either way, you challenged me for the true record. Below, you will > find the exchange you are interested in. I redacted both of Jonathan's > responses in case he wrote them. As you can see, I wrote a lot in > private, but was ineffective. > > Similar to my other responses, I am committed to transparency when possible. > > For context you will need to know that my internal hindrances with > operating lintian.d.o—which we resurrected after years of spotty > service—did not start (or end) with the misplaced reimbursement. In > RT#8464 from November 2020, you will find a partial record of the > dispute. (The ticket contains one of the few irate emails I have > written in Debian; it may have contributed to my DAM warning.) To this > day, there has been nothing but obstruction. > > In my mind, the missing reimbursement simply made that point one more time. > > Jonathan witnessed some of my issues, but he did not cause them. In > Debian, too much power is held away from the public eye. We have Setec > Astronomy. Hence my open and public committees. > > Thanks for supporting my reimbursement request! > > Kind regards, > Felix Lechner > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Felix Lechner > Date: Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 7:45 AM > Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] > To: Jonathan Carter > > Hi Jonathan, > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:01 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > > > [excerpt of posting to debian-private] > > For over a year, I contemplated writing this request. As part of my > contributions to Debian I operate the website lintian.d.o. Untarring > and scanning the archive uses lots of resources. The service is > heavily disk-bound. > > It would help to upgrade one of my machines to an NVMe SSD. The > machine also needs more memory (currently 24 GB). I would not normally > make the upgrades. Would the project please help out with the proposed > purchase? > > The details in the amount of approximately US$217 are below. Thanks! > > Kind regards > Felix Lechner > > * * * > > SAMSUNG (MZ-V8V1T0B/AM) 980 SSD 1TB, $120 > Dual M.2 PCIE Adapter for SATA or PCIE NVMe, $16 > Patriot 16GB(2x8GB) Viper III DDR3 1600MHz CL9, $60 > Subtotal $196 > Sales Tax $21 > Total $217 > > All amounts are in US dollars. The seller is Amazon.com. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Jonathan Carter > Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] > To: Felix Lechner > > [redacted for privacy] > > -Jonathan > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Jonathan Carter > Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] > To: Felix Lechner > > Hi Felix > > [redacted for privacy] > > -Jonathan > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Felix Lechner > Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM > Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] > To: Jonathan Carter > > Hi Jonathan, > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > > > [redacted for privacy] > > The website consists of three parts. There is a web server, which > [redacted] hosts presently; a database on my personal VPS; and the > machinery that generates the data. > > Some time ago, [redacted] offered to host the database (part > [redacted]). I believe I met
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On 2022/03/30 07:33, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, 2022-03-29 at 20:47 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: It furthermore seems that I did not follow the proper process when filing my request, as Paul Wise pointed out. My reference to the Hardware/Wanted wiki page was referring to the procedure for after you have bought hardware, no longer need it and want to pass it on to someone else. Admittedly the page also includes info about posting hardware wishlists, but that section of the page doesn't really apply to your case since it is more for a Debian service, so just buying hardware and getting a reimbursement is a better process, this is documented in the section on hosting, which I've just rewritten to be a bit clearer. Just in case it's still not clear to anyone, the process for approval for an expense is at: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/Reimbursement PS: I also just added mention of hardware purchases to the page and uses of Debian money to the MemberBenefits page. I saw the diff e-mail, thanks! -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Tue, 2022-03-29 at 20:47 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > It furthermore seems that I did not follow the proper process when > filing my request, as Paul Wise pointed out. My reference to the Hardware/Wanted wiki page was referring to the procedure for after you have bought hardware, no longer need it and want to pass it on to someone else. Admittedly the page also includes info about posting hardware wishlists, but that section of the page doesn't really apply to your case since it is more for a Debian service, so just buying hardware and getting a reimbursement is a better process, this is documented in the section on hosting, which I've just rewritten to be a bit clearer. PS: I also just added mention of hardware purchases to the page and uses of Debian money to the MemberBenefits page. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Tiago, On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:09 AM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > > Given that Jonathan, after lots of research as he describes in this > thread, has stated that such request never reached him, can you clarify > how can you have even complied to a request for more information from him? > > Also, if that's the case, why didn't you try to reach him in private at > the time rather than bringing it to -vote months later, during an DPL > campaign period in which you are both candidates? > > In my view, your request was totally eligible and could/should be > quickly approved. Look, the discussion with Richard was about the process for disbursements. I like the idea of committees that are on schedule and open to the public. Despite the collateral damage Jonathan suffered for the missing reimbursement (which people in power have to endure) I did not intend to embarrass him, yet that's where we are taking this thread. Jonathan is a busy guy. In fact, he is so busy he too would benefit if other folks handled the disbursements. It would be a win-win for everyone. My messages may also have gotten stuck in Jonathan's spam filter. It furthermore seems that I did not follow the proper process when filing my request, as Paul Wise pointed out. Either way, you challenged me for the true record. Below, you will find the exchange you are interested in. I redacted both of Jonathan's responses in case he wrote them. As you can see, I wrote a lot in private, but was ineffective. Similar to my other responses, I am committed to transparency when possible. For context you will need to know that my internal hindrances with operating lintian.d.o—which we resurrected after years of spotty service—did not start (or end) with the misplaced reimbursement. In RT#8464 from November 2020, you will find a partial record of the dispute. (The ticket contains one of the few irate emails I have written in Debian; it may have contributed to my DAM warning.) To this day, there has been nothing but obstruction. In my mind, the missing reimbursement simply made that point one more time. Jonathan witnessed some of my issues, but he did not cause them. In Debian, too much power is held away from the public eye. We have Setec Astronomy. Hence my open and public committees. Thanks for supporting my reimbursement request! Kind regards, Felix Lechner -- Forwarded message - From: Felix Lechner Date: Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Jonathan Carter Hi Jonathan, On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:01 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > [excerpt of posting to debian-private] For over a year, I contemplated writing this request. As part of my contributions to Debian I operate the website lintian.d.o. Untarring and scanning the archive uses lots of resources. The service is heavily disk-bound. It would help to upgrade one of my machines to an NVMe SSD. The machine also needs more memory (currently 24 GB). I would not normally make the upgrades. Would the project please help out with the proposed purchase? The details in the amount of approximately US$217 are below. Thanks! Kind regards Felix Lechner * * * SAMSUNG (MZ-V8V1T0B/AM) 980 SSD 1TB, $120 Dual M.2 PCIE Adapter for SATA or PCIE NVMe, $16 Patriot 16GB(2x8GB) Viper III DDR3 1600MHz CL9, $60 Subtotal $196 Sales Tax $21 Total $217 All amounts are in US dollars. The seller is Amazon.com. -- Forwarded message - From: Jonathan Carter Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:57 AM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Felix Lechner [redacted for privacy] -Jonathan -- Forwarded message - From: Jonathan Carter Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Felix Lechner Hi Felix [redacted for privacy] -Jonathan -- Forwarded message - From: Felix Lechner Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Jonathan Carter Hi Jonathan, On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > [redacted for privacy] The website consists of three parts. There is a web server, which [redacted] hosts presently; a database on my personal VPS; and the machinery that generates the data. Some time ago, [redacted] offered to host the database (part [redacted]). I believe I met all their requirements (most notably, packaging semver [1] for bullseye), but no one has responded to my most recent message from October 4. At this point, I believe I earned the right to suspect that the delay was intended to provoke me into writing another angry letter, but none is coming. It would therefore be fine to proceed with the database. (The website will also work better if DAM kicks me out, as [redacted] suggested.) The database is currently hosted on a VPS with 1 GB of RAM, which is under dimensioned. I already offer reduced services. Having received no response from [redacted], I approached [redacted] about the database
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Sun, 2022-03-27 at 18:34 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > One thing people have been really concerned about when asking for Debian > to buy hardware is, is what happens to the hardware after they're done > with it? So far I've just told them that they can try to pass it on to > another DD who might want/need it (there's some wiki page for this that > I think is rarely used) The wiki page for this is part of Hardware/Wanted and neither the list of hardware available to be donated nor the list of hardware that people wish for have ever been used. It seems that people currently get wanted hardware and donate unwanted hardware in other ways, perhaps via web services oriented towards that or mailing lists. The wiki page might need more promotion, integration with the DPL hardware buying guidelines or possibly just removal from the wiki entirely. https://wiki.debian.org/Hardware/Wanted#Available_hardware -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Richard (2022.03.27_20:17:48_+) > > The only cases of waste I know of happens when people ask for > > sponsorship for DebConf and then hotel space is made for them (and > > possibly other expenses) and then they just don't show up without any > > heads-up. Even those are rare, but it's the only instances of really > > wasting any money that I can think of. > > Reimbursing people after the fact would avoid that. (If they didn't show up, > they wouldn't get a reimbursement.) But I suppose in some/many/all cases > where Debian is paying, it is because the person can't afford the cost. So > they might not be able to float it even temporarily. If so, then I guess > that might just be a risk we have to accept. Thankfully you're saying these > things are rare. That is how we handle DebConf travel bursaries (reimbursement after the event), except in exceptional circumstances. However, there are other expenses allocated (e.g. hotel rooms organised by the conference) that the conference has to pay for, whether or not they are used. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On 3/27/22 11:14, Jonathan Carter wrote: The only cases of waste I know of happens when people ask for sponsorship for DebConf and then hotel space is made for them (and possibly other expenses) and then they just don't show up without any heads-up. Even those are rare, but it's the only instances of really wasting any money that I can think of. Reimbursing people after the fact would avoid that. (If they didn't show up, they wouldn't get a reimbursement.) But I suppose in some/many/all cases where Debian is paying, it is because the person can't afford the cost. So they might not be able to float it even temporarily. If so, then I guess that might just be a risk we have to accept. Thankfully you're saying these things are rare. -- Richard OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix, On 2022-03-24 8:18 p.m., Felix Lechner wrote: [...] > > For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help > operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I > didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for > more information, with which I complied) even though I followed up on > my request. Given that Jonathan, after lots of research as he describes in this thread, has stated that such request never reached him, can you clarify how can you have even complied to a request for more information from him? Also, if that's the case, why didn't you try to reach him in private at the time rather than bringing it to -vote months later, during an DPL campaign period in which you are both candidates? In my view, your request was totally eligible and could/should be quickly approved. Thanks, -- Tiago
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Richard On 2022/03/24 22:17, Richard Laager wrote: The disbursements that I've heard about seem to be relatively "small potatoes" things. Is there some huge wasteful spending occurring that I've missed? Most of it is small potatoes (typically less than $1000, typically for hardware or travel or meetings). Some are really big potatoes, when DSA does big upgrades it can be 10s of thousands of dollars. The only cases of waste I know of happens when people ask for sponsorship for DebConf and then hotel space is made for them (and possibly other expenses) and then they just don't show up without any heads-up. Even those are rare, but it's the only instances of really wasting any money that I can think of. One anti-pattern I've seen with spending money (not Debian, but elsewhere) is that a group will spend e.g. $10x worth of time debating $x expense. Sometimes that is appropriate, if you're confronting a new class of spending that will be repeated and you need to develop a policy to apply. But often, it's just a waste because people want to bikeshed. Oh I've seen this in Debian. 2 seperate meetings about the price of cups (that could potentially save a few $10) where the collective salaries of the people in the room would be over a hundred times that for one hour. Especially in DebConf people want to save money, and it's great, but I like to encourage them to spend a bit more where it can save a lot of volunteer time, and also where it can increase quality (I consider it wasteful if we, for example, buy a t-shirt so cheap that the only thing someone would want to do with it is wash their car with). In cases like those spending a bit more is using our money more efficiently. -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Paul On 2022/03/26 01:27, Paul Wise wrote: We have these documents related to that: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL#Money https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/AskingForMoney https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/SponsoringGuidelines These were written by Stefano Zacchiroli in 2010 when he was DPL, he added the hardware guidelines in 2012 and since then only very minor edits have been made by non-DPL folks. Are there any expenditure requests you have approved that would not fit into the categories listed on the existing expenditure guidelines? They all fit into those guidelines, except for the DebConf20 proceeds that we donated to Framasoft for PeerTube development, that was the one notable exception, this was handled transparently and with consensus, so I doubt that would be a problem. What changes to the existing expenditure guidelines would you make? I'd like it to be a bit more consistent depending on who's DPL. So far I've approved every request unless there's a good reason no to (like if it goes against our guidelines, or against the obligations that our TOs have when working with money). In the past I've seen some DPLs make some relatively small approvals quite complicated, and also denying some requests that I think should've been approved. My goal is also to give a DD more confidence in sending through a request, I often have more work because someone tells me that they need something but then I have to do the work to convince them that it really is ok to submit a request. I want to make it easier for DDs to spend the money that was donated to them to make Debian better, and I squarely disagree with Felix that it should become any harder for DDs to spend money. One thing people have been really concerned about when asking for Debian to buy hardware is, is what happens to the hardware after they're done with it? So far I've just told them that they can try to pass it on to another DD who might want/need it (there's some wiki page for this that I think is rarely used), or sell it and donate the proceeds back to Debian, or just keep it as a spare in case they need it again. But it would be nice to have this in writing. I also make a point of telling people that Debian is /not/ responsible for the hardware. If it breaks or needs maintenance, then it's their responsibility to take care of it (although, they could also submit another request for that if needed). So, in some ways I'd like to make it simpler, but also add some more information, build some more confidence for someone who needs to make a request, and have some more policy that applies to the DPL so that it's more consistent based on who's DPL. And if a new DPL doesn't agree with it, they can also just update it again with a notice going out to the project. -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 11:41 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > I still want to work towards having an expenditure policy, ... > The idea would be that there's some clear document that makes it > really easy for someone to know whether they can apply for something > or not, and I think if it hits a few checklist items that makes it a > braindead yes, then we shouldn't even require DPL approval. We have these documents related to that: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL#Money https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/AskingForMoney https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/SponsoringGuidelines These were written by Stefano Zacchiroli in 2010 when he was DPL, he added the hardware guidelines in 2012 and since then only very minor edits have been made by non-DPL folks. Are there any expenditure requests you have approved that would not fit into the categories listed on the existing expenditure guidelines? What changes to the existing expenditure guidelines would you make? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On 2022/03/25 11:41, Jonathan Carter wrote: For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for more information, with which I complied) even though I followed up on my request. That's odd, I usually approve them fast (as in, within 24h) because it's a quick and trivial mail, but I can't find your request in my reimbursements folder at all. I'm in meetings now but will take a look later on if it reached the dpl-archives at all. It's not in the dpl mail archives either (nothing from you in November, no request nor a follow-up). I even checked the rest of the year, mails from you on other topics in other months are there though. I've asked the treasurers to check if they have seen your request too, but from what I can tell in my local folders and on the leader@ archives, it doesn't seem that your request ever reached me. -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix On 2022/03/25 02:18, Felix Lechner wrote: For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for more information, with which I complied) even though I followed up on my request. That's odd, I usually approve them fast (as in, within 24h) because it's a quick and trivial mail, but I can't find your request in my reimbursements folder at all. I'm in meetings now but will take a look later on if it reached the dpl-archives at all. My idea for a Disbursements Committee was thus born by a simple desire for greater accountability (or, at a minimum, a response). Plus, if elected, I could never issue that $217 check to myself. I disagree about some of your previous statements to make it more difficult to spend money, I still want to work towards having an expenditure policy, which I still hoped to finish the last month or so, but there was just really too much going on. The idea would be that there's some clear document that makes it really easy for someone to know whether they can apply for something or not, and I think if it hits a few checklist items that makes it a braindead yes, then we shouldn't even require DPL approval. So, I would go for making it even easier to spend money than not to. During my 2 terms we went from having around ~$750k in available funds to having about ~$1.25m now. Every time I mention what we've been spending on (like DSA upgrades, hardware for DDs, etc), we get more donations. As long as this is the case, I have no problem with DDs spending any money they want to if it helps them make Debian better. After all, this is literally the only reason why someone donates money to Debian in the first place. So, I don't believe that the Debian funds should be preserved like some kind of treasure. We should make it as easy as possible for people to give us money, and as easy as possible for DDs to spend money, all within our legal and social frameworks, of course. As for your question about "huge wasteful spending," yes, I do worry about Debian's expenditures in light of Jonathan's comment that he is happy to "give a lawyer a lot of money." [3] Happy is a loaded word that you chose there. If I have to spend money on lawyers to protect the project and its members I will do so without hesitation. I'd /rather/ not have to spend that at all, and find it disappointing that you would even hold that against me. I have worked with teams of lawyers. They get expensive fast. Well, at least there's one thing we agree on. Either way, the right person to address your question is Jonathan, whom I copied as a courtesy. Jonathan ran on financial transparency platforms in both the 2020 election [4] and again in 2021. [5] Besides the updates I've sent out on our financial status every few months, that's not something that will get better soon in the next term. That's to no fault of me (or a next DPL), I've had a bunch of meetings with the treasurer team and TOs to talk about this, and there's a lot of things that need to be fixed along the way in order for us to get the accounting that we need. I'm sure we'll get there. Our TOs have indicated that they are willing to switch accounting systems, use the same expense codes, etc to help make it easier to aggregate data much faster (as in, possibly even almost real-time). That's a whole rabbit hole on itself, but I do believe having a basic incorporation of Debian, along with better agreements with our TOs will be a good starting point to get our financial reporting on the standards that we want them. -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On 3/24/22 19:18, Felix Lechner wrote: For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for more information, with which I complied) even though I followed up on my request. I would be interested to hear why that was not approved. On its face, that seems reasonable. As for your question about "huge wasteful spending," yes, I do worry about Debian's expenditures in light of Jonathan's comment that he is happy to "give a lawyer a lot of money." [3] I think you're taking that completely out of context. The comment was "I [w]as hoping we could just [pay] a lawyer...and they could deal with it." This follows "it turned out that the legal work around it was much hairier and involved than I had previously anticipated". So he was hoping this could be delegated to a lawyer, but it turned out that it still took a bunch of work from our side (him). You're focusing on the "..." bit of "a lot of money", which is just a reference to how lawyers are expensive. [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00137.html -- Richard OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Richard, On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 1:17 PM Richard Laager wrote: > > The disbursements that I've heard about seem to be relatively "small > potatoes" things. Is there some huge wasteful spending occurring that > I've missed? I don't know. As an outside candidate, I received no confidential briefings. SPI's website publishes data that is in monthly aggregate form [1] but I am not sure how to read it. I also looked for consolidated virtual accounts on the Debian Treasurer's website [2] but could not find any. Do the amounts have to be large in order to matter to people? For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for more information, with which I complied) even though I followed up on my request. My idea for a Disbursements Committee was thus born by a simple desire for greater accountability (or, at a minimum, a response). Plus, if elected, I could never issue that $217 check to myself. As for your question about "huge wasteful spending," yes, I do worry about Debian's expenditures in light of Jonathan's comment that he is happy to "give a lawyer a lot of money." [3] I have worked with teams of lawyers. They get expensive fast. Either way, the right person to address your question is Jonathan, whom I copied as a courtesy. Jonathan ran on financial transparency platforms in both the 2020 election [4] and again in 2021. [5] For any of your follow-up comments not quoted above, I perceived your opinions to be final. Please allow me to let your voice stand on its own. Thank you for your constructive follow-up questions! Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/ [2] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Treasurer [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00137.html [4] https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/jcc [5] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/platforms/jcc
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On 3/20/22 11:58, Felix Lechner wrote: I would not be comfortable granting financial requests, other than on an emergency basis, without some type of community review. The disbursements that I've heard about seem to be relatively "small potatoes" things. Is there some huge wasteful spending occurring that I've missed? One anti-pattern I've seen with spending money (not Debian, but elsewhere) is that a group will spend e.g. $10x worth of time debating $x expense. Sometimes that is appropriate, if you're confronting a new class of spending that will be repeated and you need to develop a policy to apply. But often, it's just a waste because people want to bikeshed. I might ask you, Richard, to serve on my Disbursements Committee together with someone I perceive as an equally strong person but otherwise different from you in some way. A small Appointments Committee could help me figure out who would be a good counterweight. This approach certainly plenty of merit. The devil is in the details, though. If the group is roughly evenly split, then having appointees evenly split to counterbalance each other is appropriate. If the wider group is 80:20, 90:10, or 99:1 on an issue, then picking one from each side unfairly weights the minority position. Maybe that's okay or even desirable (to protect the minority) at 80:20 and a minority position that's reasonable. But it's certainly not good at 99:1 where the 1% position is insane. (I'm not thinking of any particular issue here.) For contentious topics, the debate over disbursements would automatically be compartmentalized to your tiny committee without burdening the entire project. ... The moderating effect grows with the size of your committee. This seems naive. If this principle were true, then political strife in society would disappear because we've tasked our elected representatives with dealing with these issues. We all know that isn't the case, even with bodies the size of a state/national legislature. -- Richard OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Gunnar Wolf wrote on 20/03/2022 at 17:44:44+0100: > Felix Lechner dijo [Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 06:49:50AM -0700]: >> Hi Gunnar, >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> > >> > This year I think I will break my usual >> > practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\ >> >> With that statement, you potentially committed two >> infractions—depending on where you live. >> >> First, revealing a vote is widely looked down upon. Why would you do >> it other than to sway people who have not made up their minds? It's >> why some folks desire to have secret votes. Your conduct might also be >> illegal in some places. [1] > > Debian is not a country. Our elections are not bound by national or > state-level electoral laws. > >> Second, you expressed a preference among candidates while holding >> public office. [2] That is a big gray area, but restrictions exist in >> the US [3] and, to some extent, in Germany. [4] On a Debian list, you >> are an office holder with expanded authorities. Would it not be better >> to act moderately compared to membership, on average? > > I am just a Debian Developer, just as you are. I happen to have > received some delegations... but that's an internal issue of an > organization -- a not-legally-incorporated organization even. > > If you plan on becoming a DPL, I suggest you to look into > understanding the difference between the role of the Debian Project > Leader and that of a President, Prime Minister, Supreme Dictator, or > something like that. I'm sorry to add to the bad atmosphere, but reading Felix' prose and this subthread, I hope he doesn't ever become a DPL. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Jonathan, On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 11:09 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > How would you gauge that, Felix? It's impractical to have a vote every > time a decision is to be made, which is why voters want to know how a > potential DPL would make choices so that they can make an informed > choice on who to vote for. Even if you end up setting up that army of > committees (I can't imagine all the bureaucracy that will come with), > you would still have to make frequent decisions unlikely covered by > those committees. So, again, how would you gauge what project members > perceive as proper? What can I say? Rule by decree is more efficient around the world. I tried to explain my vision for more checks and balances in my response to Richard Laager [1] who asked the question first. I believe that a civic system, however simple, approximates the will of the people to a greater degree. No referendums are needed. Referendums wouldn't solve anything. We are a direct democracy that isn't, because people are too afraid of voting. We should give folks another way to take charge. As to the level of bureaucracy, the collective process we use presently is probably even less efficient. A distributed system, on the other hand, would reduce the reading burden on the mailing lists. Many problems would be handled by experienced committee members, who can make decisions for the project at set times but also easily revisit them. Right now, we can hardly do either. Please allow me to add that I admire your work as DPL. You have done a marvelous job for two years, and will also give the project your best in your third term. I hope you adopt some of my ideas when you are re-elected. Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00174.html
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Richard, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:53 PM Richard Laager wrote: > > This is a complex topic, but in broad strokes, the concept of having > more people involved seems reasonable to me. But I fear that the idea > and the reality may be different. How do you plan to find all the people > to sit on these committees? Have you found some already? > > > that enjoy broad community support. > > That is, of course, a great goal. Do you have any specifics to offer > about how to achieve that? > > How would you handle contentious topics? The benefits of greater community involvement require fewer people than you might think (but hopefully a growing number). I'll try to illustrate that below. As project leader, my greatest concern would be to lend my own decisions some measure of democratic legitimacy. Let's take disbursements, for example. I would not be comfortable granting financial requests, other than on an emergency basis, without some type of community review. I might ask you, Richard, to serve on my Disbursements Committee together with someone I perceive as an equally strong person but otherwise different from you in some way. A small Appointments Committee could help me figure out who would be a good counterweight. In your case, I might approach Daniel Kahn Gillmor, who was copied as a courtesy. (Sorry Daniel, it's all hypothetical.) Anyone unhappy with Debian's disbursements could feed supplemental information to either one of you, who would then confront the other. Your meeting is open to the public. The threshold for community involvement is low, especially for folks afraid to write to the lists. For contentious topics, the debate over disbursements would automatically be compartmentalized to your tiny committee without burdening the entire project. There is no need to write to d-devel (or to threaten to do so) unless some outrageous conduct deserves broader attention. Neither would there be a need for a General Resolution, or the all too popular threat of one. The moderating effect grows with the size of your committee. The overall temperature of the project would also go down. We already do something similar with our technical teams. In summary: Yes, you are right. The reality will be different, but no one is perfect. As for finding the volunteers, my experience is that people will contribute if they can help control their own destiny. In a group, everyone only has to do a tiny part for the whole thing to get better! Jonathan would know how much time he spends deliberating over monthly disbursements. A committee with modest experience would probably take twice as long. Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Hi everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Felix Lechner dijo [Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 06:49:50AM -0700]: > Hi Gunnar, > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > This year I think I will break my usual > > practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\ > > With that statement, you potentially committed two > infractions—depending on where you live. > > First, revealing a vote is widely looked down upon. Why would you do > it other than to sway people who have not made up their minds? It's > why some folks desire to have secret votes. Your conduct might also be > illegal in some places. [1] Debian is not a country. Our elections are not bound by national or state-level electoral laws. > Second, you expressed a preference among candidates while holding > public office. [2] That is a big gray area, but restrictions exist in > the US [3] and, to some extent, in Germany. [4] On a Debian list, you > are an office holder with expanded authorities. Would it not be better > to act moderately compared to membership, on average? I am just a Debian Developer, just as you are. I happen to have received some delegations... but that's an internal issue of an organization -- a not-legally-incorporated organization even. If you plan on becoming a DPL, I suggest you to look into understanding the difference between the role of the Debian Project Leader and that of a President, Prime Minister, Supreme Dictator, or something like that.
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Tiago, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:56 PM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > > I have to say I feel really troubled by reading this. It's hard to believe > that > a candidate for DPL addresses a legitimate and quite sensitive question with > such a rhetorical passive-aggressive borderline-bullying response. > > Well, at least it makes the voting easier for me. It was not a rhetorical question. Molly posted here three times regardless of any sensitivity. Each time I answered reluctantly, and in the abstract. After Steve McIntire's push to provide financial assistance, however, I realized that Molly's question may have been more than hypothetical. With my counter-question I hoped to clarify her request, because my answer would change. I would be prepared to provide some continuity of government, even if I personally disagree with actions taken before I was elected. (For example, to preserve the priority of a claim.) The degree depends on each case—again making any details ineligible to discuss here. In view of Molly's later assertion that she "didn't mention financial assistance or pursuing harassment claims in court," [1] I am no longer sure how to understand her original question. [2] I am sorry I was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00160.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00146.html
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Felix Lechner, 2022-03-20 09:50 -0400: > Hi Gunnar, > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > This year I think I will break my usual > > practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\ +1 > With that statement, you potentially committed two > infractions—depending on where you live. > > First, revealing a vote is widely looked down upon. Why would you do > it other than to sway people who have not made up their minds? It's > why some folks desire to have secret votes. Your conduct might also be > illegal in some places. [1] Hmm. Given that you live in California, I'm incredibly surprised that you've never seen a campaign sign (for or against a candidate) in someone's lawn before. Taowa
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
> That is a big gray area, but restrictions exist in > the US [3] The Hatch Act only applies to Employees of the United States Federal Government from engaging in political activity using their official position (in the case of a regular, and not restricted federal employee). You can't engage in political activity at work to people seeking government services, for example, but you can (in both cases) express an opinion on your personal social media, or even run for nonpartisan office! You can even campaign against a candidate on your personal time. This hot take is exceptionally bad and your characterization of the rules have NO recognizable relation to reality. Debian is also *NOT* a Government (you'll be forgiven for confusing this fact because people seem insistent they have some sort of first amendment right within the project), and we have no such election related rules. If the project wants to make a "hatch act", you're welcome to propose a constitutional amendment. Now I'm wondering about my vote order and placement of NOTA too... Paul -- :wq
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Gunnar, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > This year I think I will break my usual > practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\ With that statement, you potentially committed two infractions—depending on where you live. First, revealing a vote is widely looked down upon. Why would you do it other than to sway people who have not made up their minds? It's why some folks desire to have secret votes. Your conduct might also be illegal in some places. [1] Second, you expressed a preference among candidates while holding public office. [2] That is a big gray area, but restrictions exist in the US [3] and, to some extent, in Germany. [4] On a Debian list, you are an office holder with expanded authorities. Would it not be better to act moderately compared to membership, on average? Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://www.vox.com/21523858/ballot-selfies-state-rules [2] https://www.debian.org/intro/organization [3] for example on the federal level, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act [4] in German, https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/650184/57e48f43ca79df7039003aff9850f8c9/WD-6-045-19-pdf-data.pdf
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi, On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 08:19:28 -0400 Molly dB wrote: > I don't think it's exactly a term limit problem. In November, there was > an email to debian-private about a small team handling some legal work > (also mentioned in Jonathan's email). I want to know about how a new > DPL would take over this specific issue and manage future legal issues. > Jonathan's email shared some specifics about how the current issues are > being handled, so I hope moving forward we can talk about other things. Okay. > In general, I want to hear about how candidates intend on approaching > the kinds of issues that may need legal intervention in the future. I > understand that this is a somewhat vague question, because there are > many types of legal issues. (Someone could bring a copyright claim > against Debian, for example.) Another way to ask this question would > be: What's your project management style for a community disaster? First, I've never gotten such issues (luckily), so I would "imagine" it so far. Arrange a particular team (with our contributors and lawyers from outside of the project) and set a special issue tracker infrastructure to deal with the problem. And DPL (and assistant team if I would be ;) communicate with them (+ other teams that related to) and handle the direction. Make a monthly progress report and publish it as much as possible (I guess, without details, of course) since we project members should know the situations we face now. -- Hideki Yamane
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On 2022/03/18 20:08, Felix Lechner wrote: Which would you be prepared to provide as DPL? > Whichever the members perceive as proper. How would you gauge that, Felix? It's impractical to have a vote every time a decision is to be made, which is why voters want to know how a potential DPL would make choices so that they can make an informed choice on who to vote for. Even if you end up setting up that army of committees (I can't imagine all the bureaucracy that will come with), you would still have to make frequent decisions unlikely covered by those committees. So, again, how would you gauge what project members perceive as proper? -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Tiago Bortoletto Vaz dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:56:15PM -0400]: > > > If a Debian contributor > > > was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > > > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? > > > > Did the project provide assistance to you, and do you worry that the > > assistance might not continue if I am elected? Thank you! > > I have to say I feel really troubled by reading this. It's hard to believe > that > a candidate for DPL addresses a legitimate and quite sensitive question with > such a rhetorical passive-aggressive borderline-bullying response. > > Well, at least it makes the voting easier for me. I have to say I also read Felix's answer with disbelief. But yes, his kind of answer means... This year I think I will break my usual practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
> My response was directed at the questions Molly had posed, namely > whether (1) contributors should be defended against third-party > copyright claims or (2) whether contributors should be offered > financial assistance when pursuing harassment claims in court. As far as I'm aware, I didn't mention financial assistance or pursuing harassment claims in court, just to be clear. Cheers, Molly
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:23:42PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Molly, > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:42 AM Molly dB wrote: > > > > If a Debian contributor > > was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? > > Did the project provide assistance to you, and do you worry that the > assistance might not continue if I am elected? Thank you! I have to say I feel really troubled by reading this. It's hard to believe that a candidate for DPL addresses a legitimate and quite sensitive question with such a rhetorical passive-aggressive borderline-bullying response. Well, at least it makes the voting easier for me. -- Tiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On 3/18/22 10:23, Felix Lechner wrote: I hope instead to devolve the concentration of power from my office into an open and transparent system of boards and commissions This is a complex topic, but in broad strokes, the concept of having more people involved seems reasonable to me. But I fear that the idea and the reality may be different. How do you plan to find all the people to sit on these committees? Have you found some already? that enjoy broad community support. That is, of course, a great goal. Do you have any specifics to offer about how to achieve that? How would you handle contentious topics? -- Richard OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:42 AM Molly dB wrote: > > If a Debian contributor > was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? Did the project provide assistance to you, and do you worry that the assistance might not continue if I am elected? Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Steve, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:12 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Which do *you* perceive as proper? > > Come on, please stop evading the question. Thank you for your persistence, but I already answered that question. [1] Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00147.html
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:08:33AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: >Hi Steve, > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:48 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> Which would you be prepared to provide as DPL? > >Whichever the members perceive as proper. Which do *you* perceive as proper? Come on, please stop evading the question. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Google-bait: https://www.debian.org/CD/free-linux-cd Debian does NOT ship free CDs. Please do NOT contact the mailing lists asking us to send them to you.
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Steve, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:48 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Which would you be prepared to provide as DPL? Whichever the members perceive as proper. Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Ross, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:42 AM Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > As DPL, you may confront issues which are not wise to handle > transparently. This could be due to negative social consequnces, legal > advice, etc. You answer makes me concerned that you intend to either: > - refuse to work on such issues > - unwisely turn them over to the broader community > > Maybe you just meant to address the two examples above, and not make a > general statement about your thoughts on being DPL? My response was directed at the questions Molly had posed, namely whether (1) contributors should be defended against third-party copyright claims or (2) whether contributors should be offered financial assistance when pursuing harassment claims in court. Both topics are of broad public interest. As project leader, I would seek to represent the will of the people, i.e. the members. Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:43:49AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: >Hi Steve, > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:19 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> Hmmm.. Do you not feel that project should stand with and support >> contributors facing harassment because of their work in Debian? > >Are you asking for empathy or for financial assistance? Which would you be prepared to provide as DPL? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Dance like no one's watching. Encrypt like everyone is. - @torproject
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Steve, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:19 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Hmmm.. Do you not feel that project should stand with and support > contributors facing harassment because of their work in Debian? Are you asking for empathy or for financial assistance? Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 08:23:12AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:42 AM Molly dB wrote: > > > > I'd like to hear about where you draw the line between individual > > issues and community wide issues. To use an example of copyright > > claims: Would it be Debian's responsibility if someone raised a > > copyright claim against an individual for their participation in > > Debian? Alternatively: If a Debian contributor (maintainer, developer, > > etc) was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? Do you > > think there's a significant difference if the copyright claim (or > > harassment) is coming from inside the Debian community or outside? > > In my case, your questions are somewhat misdirected. I intend to > exercise very few of the broad presidential powers available to the > project leader under the constitution. I hope instead to devolve the > concentration of power from my office into an open and transparent > system of boards and commissions that enjoy broad community support. As DPL, you may confront issues which are not wise to handle transparently. This could be due to negative social consequnces, legal advice, etc. You answer makes me concerned that you intend to either: - refuse to work on such issues - unwisely turn them over to the broader community Maybe you just meant to address the two examples above, and not make a general statement about your thoughts on being DPL? Ross
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 08:23:12AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > >The harassment case is easily distinguished in that (1) the victim >seeks to initiate legal action instead of needing help with a defense, >and (2) the project's survival is not at risk—unless the victim sues >Debian as well. Hmmm.. Do you not feel that project should stand with and support contributors facing harassment because of their work in Debian? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "... the premise [is] that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect." -- Bruce Schneier
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:42 AM Molly dB wrote: > > I'd like to hear about where you draw the line between individual > issues and community wide issues. To use an example of copyright > claims: Would it be Debian's responsibility if someone raised a > copyright claim against an individual for their participation in > Debian? Alternatively: If a Debian contributor (maintainer, developer, > etc) was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? Do you > think there's a significant difference if the copyright claim (or > harassment) is coming from inside the Debian community or outside? In my case, your questions are somewhat misdirected. I intend to exercise very few of the broad presidential powers available to the project leader under the constitution. I hope instead to devolve the concentration of power from my office into an open and transparent system of boards and commissions that enjoy broad community support. As with your previous question, I will try to give you at least a personal answer. Please consider, however, that I've had no legal counsel. I have also not spoken to the leadership of other, comparable projects to seek advice. By comparison my opponent Jonathan, who is also the incumbent, may have had the benefit of both. Your questions put me at a considerable disadvantage, but I will try to answer you as best as I can. My current position is that every contributor is responsible for their own actions. An indemnity for copyright claims is inappropriate because suits would become more attractive. Lawyers seek deep pockets. By the way, that part of your question connects in an important way to the topic of incorporation raised by Christian Kastner yesterday: Did Debian survive for so long in part because there was no organization to sue? Is that why we had the luxury of being on bad terms with the FSF? Faced with a suit from a patent troll, would we not huddle and cower with any friend we can find? EFF, anyone? The harassment case is easily distinguished in that (1) the victim seeks to initiate legal action instead of needing help with a defense, and (2) the project's survival is not at risk—unless the victim sues Debian as well. For harassment originating inside Debian, the project has (or will soon have) an appropriate disciplinary process. That is the extent of Debian's responsibility. Individual members additionally seeking legal remedies for harassment should please avail themselves of any court willing to hear their claims, at their own expense. I believe that some folks have done so with great success. As project leader, I would defer your questions to the membership. For my sense of community, please allow me to leave you with a quote from John F. Kennedy, which is inscribed at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Thank you for your complex set of follow-up questions! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix, I'd like to ask a tangential question. I'd like to hear about where you draw the line between individual issues and community wide issues. To use an example of copyright claims: Would it be Debian's responsibility if someone raised a copyright claim against an individual for their participation in Debian? Alternatively: If a Debian contributor (maintainer, developer, etc) was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? Do you think there's a significant difference if the copyright claim (or harassment) is coming from inside the Debian community or outside? Cheers, Molly On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 11:15 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Molly, > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:49 AM Molly dB wrote: > > > > If you feel like it's appropriate, I'd appreciate hearing more > > details > > on debian-private. > > Since Jonathan wrote that advances are imminent, I unfortunately do > not think it's appropriate for us to discuss it any further, in any > forum. > > Together with everyone else, however, you would be the first to learn > more about my approach if I get elected and there is anything left to > do. Thank you! > > Kind regards, > Felix Lechner >
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Hideki, I don't think it's exactly a term limit problem. In November, there was an email to debian-private about a small team handling some legal work (also mentioned in Jonathan's email). I want to know about how a new DPL would take over this specific issue and manage future legal issues. Jonathan's email shared some specifics about how the current issues are being handled, so I hope moving forward we can talk about other things. In general, I want to hear about how candidates intend on approaching the kinds of issues that may need legal intervention in the future. I understand that this is a somewhat vague question, because there are many types of legal issues. (Someone could bring a copyright claim against Debian, for example.) Another way to ask this question would be: What's your project management style for a community disaster? Cheers, Molly On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 08:38 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 10:57:59 -0400 > Molly dB wrote: > > In November 2021, it was discussed in debian-private that a team > > from > > Debian had been working with a lawyer for a while. (Not sharing > > details: issues remain ongoing.) How would you transition into > > taking > > on this particular responsibility and similar longer running issues > > should they arise in the future? > > I want to clarify your question a bit: You mean the term limit > causes > the problem to deal with such long term issue? > > And what is the current problem? If it would be lack of > knowledge/info/skill > to new team, adding trainee to your team may help (as I said in my > platform > as "式年遷宮"). > >
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi, On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 10:57:59 -0400 Molly dB wrote: > In November 2021, it was discussed in debian-private that a team from > Debian had been working with a lawyer for a while. (Not sharing > details: issues remain ongoing.) How would you transition into taking > on this particular responsibility and similar longer running issues > should they arise in the future? I want to clarify your question a bit: You mean the term limit causes the problem to deal with such long term issue? And what is the current problem? If it would be lack of knowledge/info/skill to new team, adding trainee to your team may help (as I said in my platform as "式年遷宮"). -- Hideki Yamane
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:49 AM Molly dB wrote: > > If you feel like it's appropriate, I'd appreciate hearing more details > on debian-private. Since Jonathan wrote that advances are imminent, I unfortunately do not think it's appropriate for us to discuss it any further, in any forum. Together with everyone else, however, you would be the first to learn more about my approach if I get elected and there is anything left to do. Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix (and others), If you feel like it's appropriate, I'd appreciate hearing more details on debian-private. Cheers, Molly On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 09:16 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Molly, > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 8:15 AM Molly dB wrote: > > > > In November 2021, it was discussed in debian-private that a team > > from > > Debian had been working with a lawyer for a while. (Not sharing > > details: issues remain ongoing.) How would you transition into > > taking > > on this particular responsibility and similar longer running issues > > should they arise in the future? > > I do not think anyone can answer topics from -private on this public > mailing list without breaching project rules, but I'll try to > alleviate your concern in a general way. > > After graduating from Harvard, I left engineering and entered a > career > in commercial real estate, where I remain licensed. For twenty years, > I have helped clients achieve their objectives. While I have no legal > training, an average transaction requires me to read between 100 and > 6,000 pages of newly drafted and existing documents. (My total > transaction volume is about $2.5 billion to date.) I am good with > foreseeing conflict and proposing solutions to parties who have > opposing interests. In short, I negotiate for a living. > > Compromise is my life. > > As for the situation from November 2021, I have a plan that I believe > will work. If elected, I will not hesitate to implement it. For > future > challenges, I'd have to see what they are. > > Thank you for your question! > > Kind regards, > Felix Lechner >
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly On 2022/03/17 16:57, Molly dB wrote: In November 2021, it was discussed in debian-private that a team from Debian had been working with a lawyer for a while. (Not sharing details: issues remain ongoing.) How would you transition into taking on this particular responsibility and similar longer running issues should they arise in the future. One of the reasons that a small team was put together was so that I wouldn't become the single point of failure on that project (for lack of better word). Also, it turned out that the legal work around it was much hairier and involved than I had previously anticipated (I has hoping we could just give a lawyer a lot of money and they could deal with it, hah!). So, going forward, the other people working on that team would likely still be available, and there's a git repository that contains a lot of evidence complete with a timeline that links to all the individual bits, and I'm willing to stay on the team at least until the incoming DPL (assuming it's not me) is comfortable enough for me to move on from there. Having said that, we've been making some large strides and we are likely to hit a significant milestone even before the DPL elections start, so hopefully by the time the elections are done there won't be too much work left on that. So in this case I think a transition won't be a particular problem, and I think for future long-running projects a bit of planning and documentation always helps. -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 8:15 AM Molly dB wrote: > > In November 2021, it was discussed in debian-private that a team from > Debian had been working with a lawyer for a while. (Not sharing > details: issues remain ongoing.) How would you transition into taking > on this particular responsibility and similar longer running issues > should they arise in the future? I do not think anyone can answer topics from -private on this public mailing list without breaching project rules, but I'll try to alleviate your concern in a general way. After graduating from Harvard, I left engineering and entered a career in commercial real estate, where I remain licensed. For twenty years, I have helped clients achieve their objectives. While I have no legal training, an average transaction requires me to read between 100 and 6,000 pages of newly drafted and existing documents. (My total transaction volume is about $2.5 billion to date.) I am good with foreseeing conflict and proposing solutions to parties who have opposing interests. In short, I negotiate for a living. Compromise is my life. As for the situation from November 2021, I have a plan that I believe will work. If elected, I will not hesitate to implement it. For future challenges, I'd have to see what they are. Thank you for your question! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Candidates, I'm excited that you all are running and appreciate your willingness to take on this responsibility. In November 2021, it was discussed in debian-private that a team from Debian had been working with a lawyer for a while. (Not sharing details: issues remain ongoing.) How would you transition into taking on this particular responsibility and similar longer running issues should they arise in the future? Cheers, Molly
