On Saturday 03 March 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > So I understand where people are coming from when they say that they > want Debian to remain 100% fully volunteer. But first of all, that > isn't even true even now; HP is funding some DD's to work mostly on > Debian-related projects, and certainly some DD's are being paid by > Cannonical, for example. But secondly and more importantly, there > people withour community that have aspirations to be better than what > we can currently offer to our users now, and this includes responding > to bug reports in a timely fashion, and for some people at least, > getting releases out on time and with stable not being quite so > embarassingly out-of-date for quite as long before we can get the next > release of stable out. There's a humongous difference between Debian paying people to work on Debian and 3rd parties like HP paying people to Debian. In particular having Debian paying for labor, moves the decision of who gets payed to work on what into Debian. Doing so brings with it a whole new level of politics. I think we should be very, very carefull before we change the equation that way. -> There's a difference between saying that Debian should remain 100% volunteer, and sayin Debian should not become an employer. -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
Attachment:
pgpNM_A9hDbZy.pgp
Description: PGP signature