Re: [Debconf-discuss] Insider manipulation of DC13 site selection, and apparent coverup
On 14/12/12 11:21, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:26:53PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> - 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
>>
>>
> For information, I would be willing to do this as someone who's been
> previously involved in organising a DebConf, and on finding sponsors,
> but not involved in any way for the current (or previous couple of)
> DebConfs.
>
> However...
>
>
That may well be a very welcome offer and I would be interested to see
how other people respond
>> Does Debian itself have some independent audit process, for example,
>> that could be used to deal with this in a final manner?
>>
>>
> We do not have something similar to this. The only time I can remember
> something like this was a audit of ballot papers for a vote. I'm also
> not convinced that there would be any requirement on anyone to actually
> respond to the audit.
>
>
Given the DebConf is financially dependent on Debian in various ways, I
suspect that avoiding any kind of Debian oversight would be unwise.
There is also the possibility that the person doing the audit would
receive Ian's evidence (which appears to be quite convincing) and would
then write in the report that the DebConf chairs or whoever had given no
details at all. Consequently, the people who had refused to answer
questions would probably not look good.
>> 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.
>>
> And all of the above can wait until after DebConf. Organising one is
> stressful enough as it is.
>
>
Not quite... transparency is an ongoing thing that needs to be
maintained, just consider some of the consequences of the current situation:
- there is already speculation (both publicly and privately) linking
other sponsors and potential sponsors to the allegations of manipulation
- some members of the global team and the wider Debian community have
backed off from involvement, it is not clear whether that is simply
because of the venue, or because of these other issues
- the publicity of this issue on debian-project
DebConf is clearly the biggest financial activity of the Debian
community, and that suggests that it should aim to follow best practices
of transparency, just as for Debian itself.
Reply to: