Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13
Jose Luis Rivas writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13"):
> I really thought people working on a project like Debian would understand
> the meaning of the "anonymous" word. Then we blame government and
> politicians.
I'm sorry, I don't follow your point. When politicians accept
anonymous loans/donations we rightly criticise them. When campaigning
organisations accept anonymous strings-attached donations we worry
that their independence is compromised.
> This is really annoying. Who would be up to give anonymous donations if
> they're not up to be "anonymous"? And anonymous should be it too for the
> people receiving it, BTW. There are ways.
At the very least any anonymous donation should be unconditional.
Everyone who is involved with dealing with such a proposal (which
definitely includes everyone on the Debconf global and local teams and
the sponsorship team) should know this, and should make it clear to
any donor.
According to Moray this proposed strings-attached donation was used as
an argument by some members of the Debconf team in favour of making
the decision favoured by the donor. That is wholly unacceptable. It
amounts exactly to the donors buying influence.
The fact that the money didn't change hands in the end doesn't help
very much if at all (and indeed in some ways it makes it worse - if
we're going to be bribed we should at least get to keep the money!)
Under these circumstances claims that the proposal evaporated before
the final decision was made are less than reassuring. Committee
deliberations of this kind are not so clear cut - for example a team
member who had been influenced by this donation and committed to a
particular point of view may find it difficult to change their
position later. It will be difficult to separate out the influence
that such a proposal had.
> "And what's if they're narcos giving out money to Debian?" Well, it is
> ANONYMOUS.
>
> If you guys are not OK with it then don't accept any kind of anonymous
> donations and make a law about it (a-la Debian way).
I would have hoped that not accepting anonymous string-attached
donations is a basic matter of ethics that everyone would understand
and follow.
These goings-on help me understand why my employer makes me sit
through tedious and absurd "compliance training" which tells us not to
give or accept bribes and not to bully people - matters which I again
would have hoped everyone would understand.
Ian.
Reply to: