Re: [Debconf-discuss] Insider manipulation of DC13 site selection, and apparent coverup
On 13/12/12 16:42, martin f krafft wrote:
> We even have some examples within our project where we willingly do
> without "full transparency" because we acknowledge the need
> (debian-private, security, some financials, etc.). In all these
> cases, we (and others) build on a strong foundation of trust between
> the members of our project and accept or even choose to set our
> ideals aside in pursuit of other causes and necessities.
>
>
Although I've been on vacation and not following other Debconf activity,
the return of this issue to debian-project really stands out
The trust you talk about is a core issue here, and it may also provide a
way out of the problem:
- if issues like this are not answered in a way that people trust, then
it undermines trust on a wider scale
- rather than publicly disclosing all the details, it may be possible to
identify somebody outside the DebConf team that all of us trust who can
gather the facts confidentially and report relevant facts publicly
Does Debian itself have some independent audit process, for example,
that could be used to deal with this in a final manner?
The report may not need to name the anonymous sponsors. Instead, it
would need to answer questions like:
a) did anybody in a key position (e.g. negotiators, committee members,
sponsor team members) have a conflict of interest?
b) did the conflict of interest undermine the work the person was
trusted to do by the DebConf team?
c) did Holger give an accurate response to Ian's questions (the email
that started this thread clearly asserts Holger's report was not accurate)?
d) can processes be improved for managing people's roles in the DebConf
organisation process, in particular, for documenting and managing
conflicts of interest and for people who have more than one role in the
organisation?
The goal is not to shame or punish anybody, but to ensure the optimal
processes are followed in future and to ensure that trust is not put at
risk.
Reply to: