On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 01:47:17AM -0400, Richard Darst wrote:
> Q: What is the difference between DebConf having its own
> earmark/accounts, and working out of Debian's?
>
> A: With debconf's own earmarks/accounts, the debconf accountant can
> easily get a list of current debconf transactions. This means it
> is easy to reconcile actual accounts with the DebConf ledger, which
> means the ledger is more likely to be be accurate.
To wrap up on this, I'm fine with having debconf's own earmarks /
accounts, as long as there are the periodic merge windows we have
discussed elsewhere. I understand there will be out of band transactions
arriving later---even one year later according to one of the extreme
example you reported---but IMO they should be handled as exception and
they seem to be rare enough.
A consequence of this is also that the "stable" storage for debconf
accounting information cannot be only the list of transactions
maintained by the specific account we'll use, but should be stored
elsewhere. As little as I know of accounting, this is not an extra
requirement, as one usually take snapshots and restart consolidating
transactions periodically from the last snapshot.
Are we on the same line on this and can we go ahead with separate
earmarks + merge windows?
> Furthermore, it will prevent DebConf from deficit spending without
> someone noticing and bringing it up.
TBH, I consider this to be a feature. If DebConf needs to do deficit
spending outside the time window during which DebConf accounts exist
(which I guess will always invariably mean *before* those accounts are
created), I think that should be authorized by the DPL.
What I imagine will happen in practice, is simply that at the first need
of spending money for DebConfN, we will start the DebConf accounting
period for that year.
> Q: What are the advantages of letting DebConf finalize its
> transactions before giving Debian back equity?
<snip>
> If we know some things will take an unreasonable amount of time, we
> should close before then and pass off those things to Debian.
Key here is "unreasonable". Based on the shared past experience this
list should have, what would be "reasonable"? Also, I wonder whether
long running transactions are usually payments that DebConf has to do or
rather incomes that DebConf has to collect. In the former case
(payments) one can imagine transferring equity back to Debian earmarks
minus the expected expenses.
Would that be acceptable according to your, very reasonable I must say,
requirements to avoid inducing extra work?
> I hope this explains why I want stuff the way I am asking. I am more
> than happy for someone else to say ey'll be the accountant, then I
> will stop making requests.
I'm under the impression that we have a general agreement on the
separate earmark scheme, provided that it's alive only for a specific
time window. We "just" need to find a way to define the time window ...
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature