Re: partnership program: expiry and ordering
Am 17.09.2010 17:45, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> [ posting to -project as it seems to me more appropriate for the topic
> I'm raising ]
I don't think you have, so keeping a bit more quotes than usual.
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:40:13AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
>> > As announced, we had a small meeting during this years FrOSCon.
> Thanks for this summary!
>> > We agreed in proposing new procedures for the partners website and came
>> > up with redoing the current topics to "Community Partners", "Hosting
>> > Partners", "Hardware Partners" and "Financial Partners". It was
>> > suggested that the current "Development Partners" should be moved into
>> > the "Community Partners" section as they mostly sponsor development of
>> > community driven projects. A discussion came up if partners need to
>> > reapply after a certain time, though we had no real consensus on that
>> > topic.
> I think we should have an expiry mechanism. Partnerships where Debian is
> one of the peer are done, by the 2 peers, for different reasons (or at
> least this is my understanding and experience in dealing
> with—unfortunately only perspective ATM—partners as DPL).
> The non-Debian partner usually wants to give resources to Debian in
> exchange of some visibility. Debian has the interest in getting the
> resources (hardware, money, goodies, sustained work contributions on
> important sub-systems, etc.) and is ready to offer visibility to the
> partner in exchange of that. As most of the resources we get for
> sponsors are consumable, it is in our interest to have a sort of "expiry
> date" to partnership, to encourage partners to donate again in the
> future. The expiry period can be long (2 years?), and we for sure don't
> want to seem picky on this kind of stuff, but I can't find a valid
> reason for not having a partnership expiry period at all. Am I missing
Sorry, I can't remember the arguments any more :( Maybe an other
participant can comment on that?
>> It was discussed whether listings should be ordered by qualitative
>> criteria, such as the amount of financial support. This idea was
>> dropped as no other criteria could be found for hosting and especially
>> community partners. The best idea seems therefore to sort them either
>> alphabetically or in order of the acceptance date.
> My experience on this is mostly with conferences, which usually list
> partners in order of contributions. While it's a bit "rude", I've always
> found it to be very fair. I probably don't know enough of how community
> partners work (I'm offline and I can't check that either, sorry) to
> understand why their contributions cannot be quantified; can you please
> expand a bit on this?
Well, take for example HP, credativ and Skolelinux. Two companies
employing DDs and a Subproject, which "heavily involved in both the
creation and testing of the new debian-installer and the localization of
Debian." How to compare two companies with a non-profit organisation
helping us? How to compare the companies? Shall we ask them for time
scheets of their employees to see how much time they spend working for
Debian? And looking at the total numbers of employees, isn't credativ
doing much, much more in supporting Debian than Debian?
We discussed it for quite some time, and every sort option we could
think of, someone found an example, being unfair to one of our existing