Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Anthony Towns wrote:
| then we should act). But we're meant to be supporting our users, and not
| discriminating against them, so forbidding commercial entities outright
| from being involved just doesn't seem like a good first step.
| Hope that made sense.
I agree 100%. I think that good criteria will be critical to help
ensure that Debian is not "abused" going into this type of adventure,
but outright discriminatory behavior should be avoided.
| Do we want it to imply something more than that, like people working
| in the Debian Labs should be employed fulltime to develop Debian? Is it
| enough that all the stuff they develop gets packaged and put in Debian?
| Or should they be employing fulltime one or more Debian developers
| without having any control over what they work on? If the latter, who
| should be saying what they work on?
| Is it appropriate for Debian Labs guys to do support as well as
| development? Could you have a Debian Lab that preinstalls Debian systems
| and fixes them when they break? If so, does everyone in the lab have to
| be a registered developer? Is it okay to install software from contrib or
| non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
| stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?
I think all of these are good questions, which answers should come in
form of the guidelines/criteria of being granted the "Debian Labs" name.
| Do we want to allow people to earmark donations for a particular
| Debian Lab, as a way of indirectly allowing users to sponsor particular
| developers or projects? Is it possible for SPI or similar organisations
| to manage such donations to minimise the amount of tax that's cut from it?
I think doing this is more than "Debian" or "SPI" probably wants to get
into. The "labs" should be responsible for getting their own funding.
Debian should be more concerned about getting users to fund Debian/SPI
than the labs. If SPI/Debian in turn wanted to take some of their funds
and donate to a particular lab, I suppose that would be up to them. I
just think the _administration_ of funds for others is an ugly venture
that would suck more time than it would return in benefit.
| Are there any other benefits that a group should or could receive from
| being called a "Debian Lab" ?
Is the only currently discussed benefit use of the "Debian" trademark?
If so, do you want to consider other benefits? Some thoughts that come
to mind would be allowing them some greater say in project issues.
However, personally I would hate to see that. One thing I have admired
about Debian is that it really is individuals running the show, not
groups, organizations or corporations. Giving these *labs* any sort of
inherit benefit over an individual Debian developer would be dangerous
(imo) to the balance of Debian. It would be great to hear others
opinions on the subject and potential other benefits that wouldnt upset
balances of power.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----