Re: moving of dinstall run time on master.

[Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>]

On 28 Mar 1999, John Goerzen wrote:

> Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > > Wait a minute.  Since when does Novare dictate Debian policy?  Why are 
> > > you, or they, forcing decisions on Debian solely by virtue of your
> > > status as a donor of equipment to Debian?
> > 
> > Policy?  How is this policy?  Moving dinstall's run time does not affect
> > debian positively or negatively.
> 
> You have claimed the right to tweak the crontabs of a certain
> developer, crontabs that happen to control dinstall run time.
> 
> Now then, since you magically have this right (which neither the
> Constitution nor the Bylaws grants you), you could just as easily
> decide to change it so that dinstall runs once a month.

So, once we host debian, we have no control over how debian uses that
bandwidth?  If some user starts transferring large files, that have no bearing
on debian, I would not be allowed to put a stop to this, if I had noticed it?
Would I have to wait for debian-admin to react, when the infraction that is
happening now is costing money?  If I saw a problem occuring RIGHT now, that
was very serious, I would act RIGHT now, without conferring with debian first.

Granted, this hasn't happened.  But what you propose is that the ongoing donor
has no say at all it what they donate.  This is wrong as well.


> > And please, don't forget that debian does not pay for this bandwidth.
> 
> I know.  Had you said, "Debian, please do x; here are the reasons", I
> see no reason that we would have objected.
> 
> See?  You are taking a Debian decision out of our realm and making it
> your own.
> 
> > > Once again, Novare people are invoking their status as Debian donors
> > > as justification for imposing decisions on Debian.  Regardless of
> > > whether the move is justified (I believe it is), you are not the one
> > > to force this decision on Debian, and the fact that your company
> > > donates equipment to Debian gives it no special right to control
> > > Debian.  Where does the Constitution, or the SPI Bylaws, state that
> > > donors have control over Debian affairs?
> > 
> > <hypothetical>
> > Eh?  So, do you say that we would have no right to pull the plug on debian
> > donations?  Would you force us to keep hosting for debian, because it would
> > harm the project otherwise?  If so, then why not just force uunet, digital
> > island, sprint, earthlink, exodus, mindspring, mci to host debian machines,
> > and have each give us a 100mbps switched ethernet connect?
> > </hypothetical>
> 
> You do have the right to pull the plug on Debian donations, unless
> there was some contractual agreement that I am not aware of.
> 
> And you have the right to tell us "Debian, please do x; here are the
> reasons.  If you don't, we will have to stop donating y to your
> project."  The difference between this and what you were doing is that 
> in this case, Debian can make the decision whether we will do x or
> find a different provider for y.  As you have said it, Debian will do
> x whether it likes to or not.
> 
> > Because we pay for the bandwidth.  We have every right to say how that
> > bandwidth is used.
> 
> So you have every right to say that ssh will be discontinued?  That
> 50% of developer accounts will be deleted because they use bandwidth?
> And you have the right to go on to master to delete ssh because it
> uses bandwidth?

That does not affect our business.  Something like this would not even be
considered.  This is more of that common sense.

> > > > pps: Some of this email is from me, and some of it is from novare.
> > 
> > This still holds.

Again, the same is true.

Adam