On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:37:35AM +0700, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >> b) What qualifies a contributor to become a "Debian Partner"? What
> >> qualifies a "Debian Partner"?
> >
> > I don't think we have a formal list of "Debian Partners" (bu
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> b) What qualifies a contributor to become a "Debian Partner"? What
>> qualifies a "Debian Partner"?
>
> I don't think we have a formal list of "Debian Partners" (but I could be
> wrong). I'm also not convinced we need one.
>
> If we do
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:13:02PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> SPI's Treasurer, Michael Schultheiss, (and by the way Debian Developer)
> does a really good job by sending out monthly Treasurer's Reports which
> are in every monthly meeting minutes linked from
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corpora
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this question goes to all candidates:
>
> The Debian Project receives quite a number of monetary donations as well
> as contributions in kind via several umbrella organization like SPI,
> ffis, de
Hi,
On Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 22:10:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - it is not easy enough accessible to DDs (I know, it is enough to
> become a SPI member and subscribe to the list, but I still believe it
> should be _easier_, e.g. a directory somewhere with archived .txt
> files acces
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar writes:
> At [0] AJ wrote that Martin Michlmayr spoke to Linux Australia about it
> holding money/donations for Debian. So, potentially, LA may/will have
> Debian money.
Thanks, this was news to me - and shows that I should have posted the
list alread
>SPI
>Verein zur Förderung Freier Informationen und Software e.V. (Germany)
At [0] AJ wrote that Martin Michlmayr spoke to Linux Australia about it
holding money/donations for Debian. So, potentially, LA may/will have
Debian money.
[0] http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-M
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> I don't think it is too much of a burden for a Debian volunteer to send
> out quarterly or even monthly emails and then collate the answers. But
> it might be a burden to the trustee organizations. But the only way to
> find out is to ask, of course :)
Forgot to add: track
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> As I wrote before, one thing is a desiderata, one thing is what you can
> get given the available work forces. Given that you've just stepped
> back from the position (which, honestly, I forgot we had), the first
> obvious step is now finding a new volunteer for the p
m, make them available to our donors. It is
just fair to provide something like that for a project that collects
donations
Assuming there is enough work force and interest in the above, if
elected I will push for it.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ U
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> or not. Note that achieving that is not necessarily easy: it probably
> involves more work on the shoulders of various treasurers and we should
> be ready to help out with that, if it is a blocker.
It isn't that difficult, the only thing that needs to happen is for t
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> a) What do you think are valid goals to spend this money on?
I believe the driving principle should be to use money as much as
possible to keep the project running at its best, while keeping an
emergency reserve (e.g. to be sure
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> The Debian Project receives quite a number of monetary donations as well
> as contributions in kind via several umbrella organization like SPI,
> ffis, debian.ch, etc.
>
> a) What do you think are valid goals to spen
Le Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit :
>
> The Debian Project receives quite a number of monetary donations as well
> as contributions in kind via several umbrella organization like SPI,
> ffis, debian.ch, etc.
>
> a) What do you think are va
Hi,
this question goes to all candidates:
The Debian Project receives quite a number of monetary donations as well
as contributions in kind via several umbrella organization like SPI,
ffis, debian.ch, etc.
a) What do you think are valid goals to spend this money on?
b) How would you think is a
tax-beneficial form,
usually including reasonable limits on how donations are spent and
public reporting, but I'd accept just having not-for-profit.
[...]
> > Why? What problem does only modifying the foundation solve?
>
> The problem that you need to pay a lot of taxes to g
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> + It would be preferable if the organizations holding assets in
> + trust for Debian undertake certain obligations for the handling of
> + such assets, as an example:
It seems strange to use a conditional with no condition.
I suggest:
+ It is preferre
rson
- acting as a Developer does so as an individual, on their own
- behalf.
- 9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
- Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any donations
- for the Debian Project must be made to SPI, which manages such
- aff
orking capital
if it's already been committed, as it will be in this case.
Prehaps specifying that any donations received must be available to be
transfered to us immediately upon request may be beneficial. I'm not
sure how best to word this to allow for bank delays (eg: credit card
clear
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In some countries like e.g. Austria it is quite difficult to get the
> tax-deductable status for donations while it is fairly easy to get tax
> exumption for them.
Then I think going tax-exempt would be adequate in Austria.
> If a c
eficial not-for-profit
>> organisation. Arguably, a state without such an organisation is
>> not a good place to store debian's money anyway.
> In some countries like e.g. Austria it is quite difficult to get the
> tax-deductable status for donations while it is fair
uch an organisation is
> not a good place to store debian's money anyway. If you must,
> add some words like "or near equivalent" to it. The intent
> should be clear: BigRetailerCorp is not a place for donations.
In some countries like e.g. Austria it is quite difficult
such an organisation is
> not a good place to store debian's money anyway. If you must,
> add some words like "or near equivalent" to it. The intent
> should be clear: BigRetailerCorp is not a place for donations.
There are more ways to get that done than through a hard requ
rds like "or near equivalent" to it. The intent
should be clear: BigRetailerCorp is not a place for donations.
> > Could we at least require debian funds to be listed seperately
> > on the accounts of any holding organisations?
>
> I have no issue with setting requirement
* Manoj Srivastava:
>
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>4.1. Powers
> Together, the Developers may:
> +6. Together with the Project Leader make decisions about
> + property held
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:51:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I think that's the very case where we need the time to examine the
> > private vetting process, since there may be no external communication
> > before the announcement.
>
> Why wouldn't
of property for purposes related to Debian
- Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any donations
- for the Debian Project must be made to SPI, which manages such
- affairs.
SPI have made the following undertakings:
1. SPI will hold money, trademarks and other tangi
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:51:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I think that's the very case where we need the time to examine the
> private vetting process, since there may be no external communication
> before the announcement.
Why wouldn't we just have a public vetting process that takes two
not force) Debian
> > Developers worldwide to become part of its organizational structure.
> > Would that satisfy you?
>
> The account listing would be a good step forwards, but I
> think requiring DD membership may restrict the types of
> organisation which could be used unne
which could be used unnecessarily. Approval
should be more about whether the aims are compatible (including
that commercial traders should not hold donations too) than
whether DDs can join directly.
> [...]
> > > Cc sent to -vote, because if we're going to update the constitution,
uncement stating: "Baring intervention
by DDs, Foo Organization will be able to hold assets and accept
donations in the name of Debian in two weeks from this announcement"
putting much of a procedural road block that will harm legitimate
work.
> > Is there actually a need to be abl
I agree that the delay is a pain when things are done right,
but I feel there should be some opportunity for public review
before a fanfare and donations start going to the new body.
> Also, I think the fact that it would take a while for the
> funds to start flowing, so Evil DPL wou
On 14 Jun 2006, Don Armstrong said:
[Snipping away stuff that needs more thought to reply to]
>> Well, I am not sure. §4.2.2.2 means that such a decision by the DPL
>> can be immediately put on hold, well before any funds are
>> committed. I don't see how delaying decisions to authorize or
>> u
person acting as a Developer
does so as an individual, on their own behalf.
and moving this to a hypothetical 4.3 where it actually makes sense
and get rid of this paragraph where it's mired in the organization
specific language?
> >> 9.2. Management of property for purposes
nt is that not all DD's are automatically
considered agents or employees, etc. I think I have wording in there
somewhere that the organization may employ or give other powers to
individual DD's if they want, but they are not compelled to do so
>> 9.2. Management of property
tion of their agenecy or
employment?
>9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
>
> + Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> + donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a set
Consider s/for/to/
> + of organizations
> (I would strongly recommend a web page that reflects currently
> authorized organizations, and non-DPL's can maintain that, based on
> public announcements).
BTW, if anyone wants to start working on this now, please contact me.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> SPI and Debian are separate organisations who share some goals. Debian
> is grateful for the legal support framework offered by SPI. Debian's
> Developers are currently members of SPI by virtue of their status as
> Developers.
s/currently members of/eligib
does so as an individual, on their own
- behalf.
9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
- Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any donations
- for the Debian Project must be made to SPI, which manages such
- affairs.
SPI have made the
ally anything even remotely
relating to property held in trust, including authorizing
disbursements". That does not match with your above interpretation.
[...]
> >> + any
> >> + donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a
> >> set
> >
> > s/dona
, but we (consitutionally) choose not to, and instead have
> others hold assets in trust for us.
>
>> +any
>> + donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a
>> set
>
> s/donations/contribut
On 12 Jun 2006, Sven Mueller outgrape:
> Well the benefit is that the DPL is forced to keep such a list, so
> that later DPLs can easily track which organizations might keep
> money for Debian. That means it is harder for money to get lost (I
> don't think that would happen intentionally, but I kn
nally) choose not to, and instead have others
hold assets in trust for us.
> + any
> + donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a set
s/donations/contributions/ ? s/for/intended to benefit/ ?
> + of organizations designated by the Project
Wouter Verhelst wrote on 11/06/2006 09:54:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 02:39:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>>This should refer to another text listing the vetted organizations.
>>One outside the constitution so it can be changed as needed.
>
>
> That's usually bad practice in a constit
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Money means "currency". Like with currency, plurals are not used to indicate
> the amount of the currency. However, when when talking about multiple types
> of currency (multiple types of money) you do use the plural.
Not necessarily multiple currencies, but any
Debian/g -- and correlating grammar fixes.
Perhaps use some simpler term, though :)
>9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
>
> + Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> + donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of
On 12 Jun 2006, MJ Ray said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> How about simplifying the strictures in the constitution to
>> something like this:
>
> That seems a substantial power transfer to the DPL, with the related
> loss of scrutiny. It may not cause problems now, but it's quite a
>
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:23:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > How about simplifying the strictures in the constitution to
> > something like this:
>
> That seems a substantial power transfer to the DPL, with the related loss
> of scrutiny. It may not
each
other or of persons in authority in the Debian Project. A person
acting as a Developer does so as an individual, on their own
behalf.
9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
- Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any donations
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How about simplifying the strictures in the constitution to
> something like this:
That seems a substantial power transfer to the DPL, with the related loss
of scrutiny. It may not cause problems now, but it's quite a bet on
the financial prudence o
* Manoj Srivastava:
> On 11 Jun 2006, Martin Wuertele stated:
>
> ]Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> ] donations for the Debian Project must be made to any
> ]one of a set of organizations designated by the Project leader
> } o
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Why not just trust the DPL to be reasonable? The language is them
> much simpler, too.
Just to even avoid having to have a reasonable DPL,[1] we could also
require that changes to the list of organisations that are authorized
to hold Debian's assets
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The point of the exercise is to avoid having so many organizations and
> so many bank accounts that we would need three professional accountants
> just to keep track. Perhaps I should have worded it as 'no more than one
> such organization shall be active per country'; [...
On 11 Jun 2006, Martin Wuertele stated:
] Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
] donations for the Debian Project must be made to any
] one of a set of organizations designated by the Project leader
} or a delegate to be authorized to handle such
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 12:40:39PM +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:31:28AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
> > After all, you don't need such an organization in _every_
> > country; there are a number of countries that have treaties which make
> > monetary transac
Hi,
How about simplifying the strictures in the constitution to
something like this:
] Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
] monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to any
] one of a set of organizations designated by the DPL to
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 12:40:39PM +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:31:28AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
> > After all, you don't need such an organization in _every_
> > country; there are a number of countries that have treaties which make
> > monetary transac
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:31:28AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> After all, you don't need such an organization in _every_
> country; there are a number of countries that have treaties which make
> monetary transactions between them cheap (e.g., the EU).
s/EU/countries using the euro/ but
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:31:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:59:19AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Just for clarity, I'm not going to support maintaining a list as part of
> > the constitution; such a list should be outside of it.
>
> Notice that there was a preced
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:59:19AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Just for clarity, I'm not going to support maintaining a list as part of
> the constitution; such a list should be outside of it.
Notice that there was a precedent, in the list of fundation documents, which
is separate from the con
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:27:04AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Perhaps a formulation like
> >
> > Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> > monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 03:35:26PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Hello Wouter,
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 12:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Perhaps a formulation like
> >
> > Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> > monetary do
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 02:39:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> This should refer to another text listing the vetted organizations.
> One outside the constitution so it can be changed as needed.
That's usually bad practice in a constitution. You want to change the
constitution if the Debia
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Perhaps a formulation like
>
> Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to an
> organization that has been vetted by the DPL to be allowed t
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 18:51 +0100, David Pashley wrote:
> Presumably because transfering money between countries involves
> non-neglegable cost, where as transfer of ownership of hardware
> doesn't[0].
I understand that - my point is that I don't see a clear reason to
*disallow* other of such "vet
On Jun 10, 2006 at 14:35, Thijs Kinkhorst praised the llamas by saying:
> Hello Wouter,
>
> I wonder why you open up the possibility for other organisations to keep
> money for Debian, but do not allow these organisations to have any
> non-monetary property for Debian.
>
Presumably because transf
Hello Wouter,
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 12:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Perhaps a formulation like
>
> Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to an
> organization that has been ve
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:54:31PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:43 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
>> > * MJ Ray:
>> > > any donations to debian must be given to SPI; or
>> >
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:54:31PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:43 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
> > * MJ Ray:
> > > any donations to debian must be given to SPI; or
> >
> > Why do you think this is so?
>
> Our Constitution, sectio
69 matches
Mail list logo
