On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 04:33:14PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Sure, you could spend money on any of these things. But you can't > > *justify* spending money on them, because we don't need it. > > And I disagree, and these are only a few things upon which we could > spend money, if we weren't so terribly concerned that it's a bad idea to > spend money and we should just save it all in case the US gets nuked. If the US gets nuked then all our money will be worthless paper, since it's currently stored in US funds. Debian is sustainable precisely because it operates without money. If we fall into the trap of just throwing money at problems then it will rapidly become the only way to solve any problem (how can we ask for hardware donations when we're willing to buy hardware?), and that isn't sustainable. > > > Perhaps this would be a more appropriate discussion to have w/ SPI, > > > since they probably fit this category at least slightly closer than > > > Debian does > > > > Yes, it would appear to be legitimate for SPI to do this sort of > > thing. That should be done without involving Debian. > > Little hard to get much done when you don't have the involvment of the > largest (far and away) project- we've seen that before. That's SPI's organisational problem. We should not let it become our problem. Debian is not a part of SPI, and is not controlled by SPI. SPI seems to have difficulty in realising this. They hold our assets, nothing more. We need it to remain this way. SPI will just have to get used to it. > > > though, honestly, Debian seems pretty well lined up in that > > > category too. > > > > Really can't see why you think that. > > hot-babe. Are you seriously suggesting that is a significant part of what Debian does? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature