Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13
On 04/12/12 17:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> According to Moray this proposed strings-attached donation was used as
>> an argument by some members of the Debconf team in favour of making the
>> decision favoured by the donor. That is wholly unacceptable. It
>> amounts exactly to the donors buying influence.
>
>> The fact that the money didn't change hands in the end doesn't help very
>> much if at all (and indeed in some ways it makes it worse - if we're
>> going to be bribed we should at least get to keep the money!)
>
> The part that I'm missing here is what you felt should have been done
> differently.
>
> Let's assume that Debian has no control over the offering of the donation
> (or loan) in the first place. I think that's a reasonable assumption.
> What I would then expect is for the team to discuss the offer (since no
> decision is ever going to be made out of hand), and then reject the offer
> as being insufficiently transparent and posing other problems with
> oversight and possible undue influence.
>
> That seems to be exactly what happened. So unless I'm missing something,
> the reaction indicated seems to be "well done, thank you for handling this
> ethically and professionally." I'm not inclined to blame people for
> temporarily discussing something, or even temporarily using it as an
> argument, before thinking it through further. Asking people to not do
> that seems to be an impossibly high standard to which to hold people. One
> of the ways that high-functioning groups develop and maintain ethical
> standards is to discuss ethical quandries in public.
>
> I'm not seeing any evidence on this thread (and, indeed, directly
> contrary assertions from people I think we all have reason to trust) that
> the withdrawn offer had any material effect on the choice of venue.
>
Not quite...
What is now clear
a) Holger, a DebConf chair, was concerned about Le Camp's budget on 25
October (referring to it as GourmetConf) and unwilling to support it
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121025.200948.bca7a335.en.html
"100k for food is just insane. We are neither GourmetConf (*) nor
should we."
b) 26 October, Holger visits Interlaken, and 27+28, he visits Le Camp
c) on 28 October, Holger reports via IRC (and subsequently confirms in
email) that he has changed his views about Le Camp and that the money is
one of the factors that changed his mind
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121029.132401.59bef7b6.en.html
"we already have 46k secured for Le Camp, quite very probably 51k. Thats way
more then ever. (I do actually miss some applause here.) "
d) as confirmed in Holger's email today, "they withdraw it basically at
the same time we rejected it" - this implies the sponsor/lender
independently came to the conclusion not to offer the money, but only
after Holger's support for Le Camp had been won
Is it just co-incidence that the sponsor decided to withdraw the money?
Or was it someone involved in or monitoring our decision making processes?
On 04/12/12 13:39, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Montag, 3. Dezember 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 6. Were the proposed donors in positions of authority or governance in
>> relation to Debconf ?
>
> no
Today, Holger has told us that sponsors/lenders were not in positions of
authority or governance (in the past tense). Ian's complete question
specified: "Examples of people in positions of authority
or governance in relation to Debconf include the DPL, the DPL
helpers tasked with Debconf-related tasks, people involved with
Debconf accounting on behalf of SPI or FFIS, and of course members
of the Debconf global or local teams."
In a reply to Holger's email on 31 October, Richard mentioned:
"they want it back before _before_ travel sponsorship... so
even if we decide to use the money to fill a deficit, it can't be used
for travel sponsorship."
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121031.082232.2c9c4f00.en.html
which also suggests the sponsors/lenders know a little bit more than the
average person about the way a DebConf budget works.
I've been asked not to repeat things from IRC into a publicly archived
list, so as much as I feel Holger's answer is inaccurate, I'm not going
to copy and paste those things from IRC right now. To summarise the
impression I have though, it has been widely speculated on #debconf-team
in late October that this money was coming from members of the local
team or a family business or some other closely connected business. In
my mind, if somebody (or their family member) is in an executive role in
such a related business, then it is no different than if the money was
in their personal control, and the question should be answered again.
So, I would really like to hear Holger (or even better, the anonymous
sponsor themself) to give a thorough response about whether the sponsor
was so closely connected with the team, regardless of whether the
sponsor is in an official delegate of the DPL
As a substitute, if the sponsor is a private individual who wants to
remain private, I would personally be happy for this to be documented by
some independent third party who will then answer Ian's question for the
public benefit.
The answers to these questions don't prevent a DebConf at Le Camp. In
fact, if DebConf goes ahead at Le Camp, then transparency about this
issue is more important than ever. Just imagine if there is a deficit
for Debian or some bigger disaster in 6 months - do we want people to be
speculating about the role this "sponsor" played in bringing Debian to
Le Camp? The debate at that stage would be ferocious. So it is much
better for the full truth to come out now before the final signing of
any contract.
Reply to: