Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
this is really getting off-topic from the initial discussion, so I'm
dropping all lists except LTS and I add the leader in the loop (he was
already following it but through debian-wb-team AFAIK).
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Do you have some concrete suggestions?
> Decrease the separation by moving the funds management into Debian proper (via
> a TO like SPI) and move to a bounty model for working on LTS. Make sure we're
> transparent with our language regarding Debian being produced by volunteers
> (eg: "The Debian Project consists of volunteers, and our products are developed
> entirely by volunteers." on ) by commenting on how bounties are available
> (or something). Consider making LTS management a delegated team.
I'm happy to investigate how to go in this direction but there are many
problems to solve:
- I don't think that the bounty model gives the correct incentive for
the security work, and you would have a hard time covering the hard
- for wheezy LTS, we are looking at hiring external support to maintain
for example Xen 4.1.x for us. That's just not possible in a bounty
model. The experts we hire want a contract.
- managing the bounty program is a lot of work and I don't see anyone
volunteering to handle this work... I do it for now because my time
is paid by the small cut that Freexian is taking on the money collected.
I would not do it for free.
> Increase the separation by removing the fundraising statements / links from the
> LTS pages previously mentioned, making Freexian just another consultancy listed
> on the consultancy pages.
If your problem is only with http://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Funding then I'm
happy to fix this but what about all the references where Freexian's offer
In our press releases, eg https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140616
(note how over time we moved to link the Funding page instead of freexian.com
to avoid putting Freexian too much into light since I'm just the
On Planet Debian, through the monthly reports I put on my blog:
On Debian Project News which regularly link to the above monthly
reports (or the reports of paid contributors directly which tend to link
back to Freexian).
If all those appearence of Freexian's offer are problematic and if you
want to hide all those as well, then I fear that we would not have
reached the level of support that we need to get LTS to a sustainable
So while I'm happy to clarify the relationship, I also don't want
to hide its existence, that would defeat its purpose.
So maybe the right path is a third solution. Create a Debian Development
Partner program defining rules for intermediaries like me... in fact this
sounds quite close to the "Debian Labs" we once had.
The rules could include:
- monthly reports to explain how the collected money has been put to use
- define a percentage to give back to a trusted organization
- maximum percentage that can be taken to cover "administrative work"
- validation by the DPL and/or the partner team
And then we would have less concerns in mentioning such commercial offers
on our official communications. And less problems in including the
sponsors of LTS in our official sponsor page (under rules to be defined).
What do you think?
the thread starts here:
and continues the month after:
> None of this is meant to diminish or tarnish the very significant contribution
> that you or Freexian are making, which are both extensive and impressive. I'm
> seeking greater definition of the role and the language used.
Thanks for saying this explicitly, it's appreciated.
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/