On 20-03-18 00 h 53, Brian Gupta wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> The idea of having a Debian Foundation sounds interesting, although I do >> share some of tbm's fears. >> >> From what I understand, you want this DPL election to be a referendum on >> the idea of a Debian Foundation. >> >> It would be really hard for me to vote for you without having a clearer >> idea of what that would entail for Debian, especially in terms of costs. >> It feels a bit like signing a blank check and hoping things go well. > > The DPL is bound to operate under the constitution, and would still need to > follow 5.1.19, so you wouldn't be signing a "blank check". > > "In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting property held in > trust for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.). Such decisions are communicated > to the members by the Project Leader or their Delegate(s). Major expenditures > should be proposed and debated on the mailing list before funds are disbursed." > >> I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian >> Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks. > > You are correct. It's going to take 6-12 months of work to create the foundation, > and that includes drafting by-laws. > >> In another email you write: >> >>> 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require >>> any changes to the constitution >> >> I'd be much more inclined to vote for you if you promised you would in >> fact propose a GR on this once elected. >> >> It would give you (and others who want to help) time to come up with a >> solid plan and let the Debian community be the final judge. > > I'd like to understand this request more. We have three trusted organizations (two > of which have Debian in their names), and we didn't have a GR to form them or make > them TOs. AFAIU, the only TO who has major expenditures due to salaries is SPI, and that's a fairly recent development. I feel creating a Debian Foundation is not the same as creating another TO, as it's something we've never done before and comes with more risks. > The GR to do what I am proposing already passed in 2006. [1] If it turns out that > additional constitutional changes are required, of course, I'd seek out a GR. I don't disagree with the fact the DPL surely has the power to create a Debian Foundation without going through a GR. The collective decision making processes Debian has are important to me and I simply don't see why we shouldn't use them to make this important decision together. > Would you be happy with the following commitments instead of a commitment to propose > a GR? > > 1) Share any proposed drafts for the organization's by-laws w/ debian-project for > feedback, and consensus-building? > 2) Consult with Project Members on a budget for hiring the administrative staff (As > would be expected by the constitution) I feel that's a good start and should indeed be the way to go to make sure we have a healthy debate on these issues. Yet, I don't see why, after doing all this and getting a rough consensus, we shouldn't still hold a GR. > I was trying to put my finger on what it is I don't love about GRs, and I think it's > the conflict between having a time-limited conversation and giving everyone a chance > to have their say. This can end up with everyone rushing to say what they want to > say, in a stressful compressed marathon sprint of discussion. I much prefer > open-ended discussions that either end in consensus or with an agreement that > consensus is unlikely to be reached. Of course some things require a GR, but I'd > hope that consensus was largely already built prior to starting the GR process. I haven't been a DD for very long, so maybe I haven't had time to internalise this bias against GRs others seem to have. You talk about a time restrictive process, but I don't see how that applies if the GR is the last step of a collective decision making process. We don't have to rush things and can discuss this issue at length. Once opinions are formed and everyone is ready, I feel making sure the whole project is OK through a GR makes a lot of sense. One thing is certain: if we keep using GRs as ways to put out flamewars or to end very heated debates, we'll keep seeing them as terrible things we should avoid as much as possible. This does not have to be the case. GRs can surely be amazing democratic tools for collective decision making. Having a "positive" GR once in a while (like for the creation of a Debian Foundation) would certainly help :) Cheers, and thanks for your reflections, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature