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

Re: Using money to fund real Debian work

On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 08:37:32AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> > [...] I would submit that people who
> > consider quitting or actually quit over something like that probably
> > have other issues to deal with.
> Can we leave the sanity attacks out of it, please?  It's unhelpful to 
> suggest that all the people with concerns about this experiment have 
> personality problems.
There is no sanity attack.  In fact, what I was implying is that there
is an apparent lack of maturity on the part of those who are
irrationally against something which is supposed to help improve the

> Are the attacks on people because there are no good answers to the 
> concerns of Martin Schulze and others?
I am not attacking anyone.

> Can Dunc-Tank advocates answer these essential questions?
> | Why is devel 1 paid but not devel 2?
1) Because there are limited funds.

> Is devel 2 not doing good work?  
2) No.  Devel 1's work was deemed more important/critical/visible/etc.

> | Will it work for devel 1 if they work more on Debian so get paid as 
> | well?
3) Why does it matter?

> Why does devel 1 have to work on a day-job to get something to 
> | eat but not devel 2?
4) Because the project cannot afford to pay someone completely
full-time.  Or perhaps, the resources need to be spread out over more
tasks.  Or perhaps, the task does not require as much time.  Or perhaps,
devel 2 is a student and is able to his/her work in conjunction with a
school project or something.

> Why is the project involved in selecting people 
> | worth for funding?
5) Because the project is in the best position to prioritize tasks that
are important to the project.

> Why can't all developers who work hard on getting 
> | Debian better be funded similarily?
6) Because the resources are not unlimited.

> > For example, why join the Debian project in the first place? 
> Because it's more efficient than the alternatives for many tasks.
Then that is fine.  It is why we have a choice to use Debian or to use
something else.  It is why we have a choice to contribute to Debian or
to contribute to something else.

> > Seriously, if money is someone's nly or primary motivation, they 
> > should go work for Red Hat, Novell or Canonical.
> However, some developers won't make the ethical compromises necessary to 
> do so.  What if money is one of your motivations, not only or primary?
Life is riddled with decisions.  Most people must either make ethical
compromises or financial compromises.  Choose your poison.

Would be great if such choices were not necessary?  Yes.  Though
unfortunately, such denies reality.



Roberto C. Sanchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: