On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:24:24PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I already wrote that it's no problem to enrich the leader account with
> Debconf information.
Yes, and I got that, but as long as the accounts are separate, I don't
think it should be me asking for that, but rather the current DebConf
liaisons. (Otherwise you'd have all the rights to refuse my request.)
> > 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).
> That's a political question you (DPL and Debconf orga) need to solve,
> nothing that can be solved technically.
Agreed. Arguably, I should have dropper FFIS in my reply (I did in a
previous one, although someone added you back), as I precisely wanted to
discuss that with DebConf team.
> > 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.
> Sorry, but... Why didn't you just ask? The same is possible here as
> well - as I've outlined several days ago as well.
Same reason as above: it shouldn't be me asking for that.
> So, is this all? Then all Debconf people need to do is
> (a) decide that leader@ and auditor@ should be able to view Debconf
> money as well - AND -
> (b) authorise leader@ for payments.
That would solve the problems outlined in this thread, but it would
still be worse than the merge, for a very simple reason: either me or
the auditors, to know the actual total amount of reserves would need to
check two accounts instead of one. It's clearly doable, but it's also
clearly less handy than the merge situation.
Additionally, keeping the separation will further the feeling in the
community that DebConf and Debian are two separate entities, while they
are not. We've been trying to fix that, together with several DebConf
team people, since the "Debian vs DebConf" BoF at DebConf10. This is, as
well as yours, a point I've already made in this thread.
All in all, I observe we're now re-discussing things from
scratch---starting from Richard's mail---while at the beginning of this
thread it seemed to me we agreed in going ahead with the merge.
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