This point makes an awful lot of sense. Is it actually against an official
policy to consider (not accept, mind you, since it was not actually accepted)
an anonymous donation with strings attached? While it may seem that certain
things are "common sense" we really cannot hold people to unstated
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:42:47AM -0800]:
> (... big snip ...)
> What remedy or action are you looking for here? I don't think breaking
> the anonymity of a donation that never happened really makes sense. Are
> you looking for site selection to be re-opened? Further reassurance
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> That seems to be exactly what happened.
> No. My reading of Moray's message is that some members of the Debconf
> teams used the existence of the donation as an argument in favour of
> selecting Le Camp as the site.
At least for some period of time
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:21:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf
> 13"):
> > The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done
> > differently.
>
> T
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf
13"):
> The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done
> differently.
This is a reasonable question.
> Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offe
On 04/12/12 18:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes:
>
>> a) Holger, a DebConf chair, was concerned about Le Camp's budget on 25
>> October (referring to it as GourmetConf) and unwilling to support it
>> http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121025.200948.bca7a335.en.html
>> "100k
Daniel Pocock writes:
> a) Holger, a DebConf chair, was concerned about Le Camp's budget on 25
> October (referring to it as GourmetConf) and unwilling to support it
> http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121025.200948.bca7a335.en.html
> "100k for food is just insane. We are neither GourmetC
On 04/12/12 17:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
>> According to Moray this proposed strings-attached donation was used as
>> an argument by some members of the Debconf team in favour of making the
>> decision favoured by the donor. That is wholly unacceptable. It
>> amounts exa
Ian Jackson writes:
> According to Moray this proposed strings-attached donation was used as
> an argument by some members of the Debconf team in favour of making the
> decision favoured by the donor. That is wholly unacceptable. It
> amounts exactly to the donors buying influence.
> The fact
Jose Luis Rivas writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf
13"):
> I really thought people working on a project like Debian would understand
> the meaning of the "anonymous" word. Then we blame government and
> politicians.
I&#x
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf
13"):
> On Montag, 3. Dezember 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm sorry to keep making trouble, but strings-attached offers of
> > substantial amounts of money from anonymous donor
Hi,
On Montag, 3. Dezember 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The "anonymous donations" we got offered were rejected (by us)
> Why do you use scare quotes ?
for two reasons: a.) because they are not anonymous to me and b.) because I'm
not as fluent in english writing as others.
> I'm sorry to keep m
On 03/12/12 20:01, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 02 décembre 2012 à 18:31 +0100, Philipp Hug a écrit :
>>> AFAIK there was an offer of a huge "anonymous donation", which at the end
>>> seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss
>>> about lack of money. I don't
Le dimanche 02 décembre 2012 à 20:22 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> DebConf13 will be held in Le Camp, Vaumarcus, Switzerland. The DebConf chairs
> atm are preparing a message explaining why we (still ;) think this is a good
> idea.
>
> If you think DebConf is a total desaster and should be d
Le dimanche 02 décembre 2012 à 18:31 +0100, Philipp Hug a écrit :
> > AFAIK there was an offer of a huge "anonymous donation", which at the end
> > seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss
> > about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there wa
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf
13"):
> The "anonymous donations" we got offered were rejected (by us)
Why do you use scare quotes ?
> On Samstag, 1. Dezember 2012, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >
Hi,
I somewhat wonder why I have to write this mail. As I already wrote the mail
quoted below (which was also just repeating stuff said elsewhere)...
The "anonymous donations" we got offered were rejected (by us) on October 28th
(or 29th, not 101% sure about the exact date), I'm pretty sure Phi
Hi Daniel,
Can you just confirm: who proposed those conditions? Did this come from
> somebody who was involved in the decision making (e.g. a committee
> member or a negotiator)?
>
> Or was the offer and the conditions from some third party outside the
> debconf team?
>
> If you want to know more
On 02/12/12 18:31, Philipp Hug wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> AFAIK there was an offer of a huge "anonymous donation", which at the end
>> seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss
>> about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was
>> string attached.
Hi,
> AFAIK there was an offer of a huge "anonymous donation", which at the end
> seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let discuss
> about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there was
> string attached.
> Anyway that offer endured only few days becau
On 02/12/12 16:23, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> On 12/02/2012 04:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Ian Jackson writes (""Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13"):
>>> I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice
>>> and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of
>>
On 12/02/2012 04:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (""Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13"):
I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice
and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of
course I don't want to be spreading unverified rumours.
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 01/12/12 01:32, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Freitag, 30. November 2012, David Prévot wrote:
> >
> >> I fail to understand, if you really “don't want to be spreading
> >> unverified rumours”, why are you posting this kin
On 01/12/12 01:32, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Freitag, 30. November 2012, David Prévot wrote:
>
>> I fail to understand, if you really “don't want to be spreading
>> unverified rumours”, why are you posting this kind of questions to two
>> other wider mailing lists?
>>
> [...]
>
Hi,
On Freitag, 30. November 2012, David Prévot wrote:
> I fail to understand, if you really “don't want to be spreading
> unverified rumours”, why are you posting this kind of questions to two
> other wider mailing lists?
[...]
> http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121102.150947.08f4206c.e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Le 30/11/2012 14:44, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I have heard some disturbing rumours regarding Debconf13, site choice
> and funding. It seems to be difficult to find clear facts and of
> course I don't want to be spreading unverified rumours.
I f
26 matches
Mail list logo
