Sorry for the long time for this reply... martin f krafft dijo [Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:01:55AM +1300]: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> [2015-10-20 19:49 +1300]: > > Given that the chairs are supposed to protect the Debian Project > > from serious issues with DebConf organization, > > This concern seems to be at the root of both delegations so far. > > I don't have my tongue in my cheek here at all, but have we ever > stepped back and answered the question what threats could put the > Debian Project at jeopardy which couldn't have been prevented > through a functioning team even without sledgehammer powers? This was one of the reasons where the first ~10 DebConfs were not run by Debian (but by Debian people). IIRC, it was at a session at DebConf 10 where we decided (of course, having discussed and all that) that DebConf would become an official Debian project, and that it needed a delegation. IIRC, at some points in the past Debian *did* lend money to DebConf. I don't remember whether in the end we didn't need it, or whether DebConf paid it back to Debian, but it was a clear distinction. That was partly made to keep Debian safe from any mistakes (either organizational or financial) we ran into. Actually, being a Debian project helped us be much more at ease, knowing that there is official backing and whatnot. But in the end, yes, having this official backing does need some responsabilities. That's what the delegation was made for (and yes, I still maintain it is needed). Of course, that is the reasons why the Chairs had to approve any non-minor budget changes, and that's the reason the initial budget is sent to the DPL for initial approval.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature