On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:28:38PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> To me this sounds more like it would would be helpful for you all if
> the money would continue to be earmarked differently in the future but
> that the Debian project leader and accountant should get a view to
> that money as well.
AFAIK, this is what is already happening on the other side of the ocean
(i.e. at SPI): money are all together, with specific DebConf earmark. I
presume DebConf people could know the earmark by asking the SPI
treasurer. The "anomaly" of the present situation at FFIS is to have 2
separate accounts, instead of the earmarking.
Note that the problem of two separate accounts is not only of visibility
(although that is the most pressing one). The other problem is that I
still consider that in case of some emergency---say $n servers failing
tomorrow at the same time---Debian should be able to use DebConf money
to buy back those servers, without having to wait for the authorization
of the liaisons people for the DebConf account (which are not the same
liaisons people for the Debian account).
Current SPI setting allows for that, while current FFIS setting
(i.e. the split) does not. Obviously, I hope something like the above
will *never* happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about
similar scenarios.
Hope this sheds some (more) light,
Cheers.
--
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