[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Donations

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Which countries can have no suitable organisations?
> I don't know, but I don't want to gamble on it not being an issue.

I've looked into this in the past and every example country
suggested so far, from European ones through to the Solomon
Islands, had some form of tax-beneficial not-for-profit
organisation.  Arguably, a state without such an organisation is
not a good place to store debian's money anyway.  If you must,
add some words like "or near equivalent" to it.  The intent
should be clear: BigRetailerCorp is not a place for donations.

> > Could we at least require debian funds to be listed seperately
> > on the accounts of any holding organisations?
> I have no issue with setting requirements for money-holding
> organizations; on the contrary. This would be a reasonable one.

I look forward to its inclusion.

> > AIUI, SPI will refuse to act illegally or to break its own
> > resolutions, which acts as a simple minimal scrutiny.
> > That is probably the same for any partner organisation,
> > but the rules of the partner may limit their responses.
> Yes, but that hasn't actually ever happened in practice. Sure, it would
> make sense to have such regulations for money-holding organizations in
> general; however, I don't see it as true to say "SPI has any say over
> Debian money".

I'm not aware of SPI refusing to distribute funds, but I
have seen SPI's board first get relevant information which
would not have otherwise been available.  Is that "any say"?
I don't know.  It's a peer review and one that I don't think
should be dismissed lightly.

> Can we leave the details behind us, please?

Yes and no.  You propose transferring control of debian's resources
from one organisation with a long-standing agreement to work in
partnership with debian, to a bag of organisations around the world
all under the direct rule of the DPL.  To ignore the details of this
change would be negligent and trying to understand who's responsible
instead of SPI if the brown stuff hits the fan is sort of basic.

> > and solves no problem which couldn't be solved by reminding some DDs
> > of the current situation, instead of retrospectively modifying the
> > foundation documents.
> I disagree.

Why?  What problem does only modifying the foundation solve?

Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: