Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13"):
> The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done
> differently.
This is a reasonable question.
> Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offering of the donation
> (or loan) in the first place. I think that's a reasonable assumption.
> What I would then expect is for the team to discuss the offer (since no
> decision is ever going to be made out of hand), and then reject the offer
> as being insufficiently transparent and posing other problems with
> oversight and possible undue influence.
Indeed.
> That seems to be exactly what happened.
No. My reading of Moray's message is that some members of the Debconf
teams used the existence of the donation as an argument in favour of
selecting Le Camp as the site.
> I'm not seeing any evidence on this thread (and, indeed, directly
> contrary assertions from people I think we all have reason to trust) that
> the withdrawn offer had any material effect on the choice of venue.
Moray writes:
Certainly at the time many people within the DebConf team were
uncomfortable that this "anonymous donation" was used to argue
that we didn't need to worry about the high prices at Le Camp, and
to argue that we should definitely choose Le Camp since this money
was only available if we went there.
I read Moray's "used to argue" as referring to arguments from people
within Debian or Debconf. Obviously it would be entirely
inappropriate for anyone within Debian or Debconf's decisionmaking
structures to argue that we should make a particular decision because
an anonymous donor makes it a condition that we do so.
In
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121029.132401.59bef7b6.en.html
Holger uses the "46k secured for Le Camp" as an argument in favour of
Le Camp as a venue. This can surely only refer to conditional
donations and AIUI this includes the anonymous "donation".
Ian.
Reply to: