Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Anonymous donation" to Debconf 13
On 04/12/12 18:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> writes:
>
>> 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.) "
>
> This message doesn't say that money was part of what changed his mind, nor
> does it say that this amount of money is related to the donation/loan that
> we're discussing in this thread. Maybe this is all obvious with
> additional context, but at least from what's mentioned on this thread, you
> aren't connecting the dots.
More context appeared earlier in this thread
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121130.200617.d5c5db4b.en.html
e.g. discussions taking place on IRC at an unlogged meeting on 28 October
>> 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.
>
> This all seems like quite a conspiracy theory. *I* know enough about how
> the DebConf budget works to make such a statement, and I've never been
> involved in organizing DebConf at all and have only attended two of them.
I suspect conspiracy is too strong a word, and while I'm not suggesting
that here, such things do happen from time to time, and having
information disclosed more transparently allows everybody to rule out
the possibility of any conspiracy and quash all the rumors.
>> 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
>
> The key point here is that *the donation didn't proceed*. So I'm having a
> hard time seeing any motivation for an in-depth inquest into the exact
> details of a donation that was not accepted. There were indeed problems
> with it, so it didn't go forward. That's the desired outcome!
Effectively the carrot was dangled before the horses at the moment when
people wanted the horses to run. Money was never paid/The horses never
got to eat their carrot, and maybe they would have run in the same
direction anyway. Maybe it was even the best direction that the horses
could have possibly run with or without a carrot to tempt them.
>From the email just sent by Darst, the final line concludes that whether
or not this carrot influenced the venue decision is "debatable"
I certainly feel the appearance of this offer the day after visiting
Interlaken undermined all the effort I put in to provide an alternative
venue for objective comparison.
However, I would agree that our democratic and distributed structure
stopped this issue in it's tracks. Holger did the right thing referring
it to Philipp (the treasurer of the local debconf committee) to analyse.
Philipp appears to have quickly recognised the faults with the issue.
Philipp sent an email informing people that something had happened and
that it had been stopped in it's tracks. I agree these are all good
things. It is sad that Philipp and Holger then become the people who
have to explain when it doesn't seem likely that they were the ones who
instigated the sponsorship/loan discussion.
> The rest of this seems to be speculation that a donation that never
> actually happened still managed to exert so much influence over the
> DebConf site selection team as to change the results of the process.
> That's an extraordinary claim. I would want to see some extraordinary
> evidence in order to entertain it.
If you follow all of Holger's emails in the week before and after 27/28
October, you will notice
a) a significant improvement in his confidence about Le Camp
b) the improved financial position (based on these figures) is mentioned
several times before the money was withdrawn on 2 November
>> 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?
>
> This argument seems circular. I'm unimpressed by attempts to raise
> concerns and then simultaneously using that raising of concerns as an
> argument that the concerns are important.
Not exactly - we have already seen speculation in the last 24 hours that
this issue originated with sponsorship from a company that some people
find controversial. It is quite possible such speculation (maybe about
other companies too) will surface again if the issue isn't closed more
comprehensively.
Just to be clear, this thread is NOT about asking people to change the
venue (there are other active threads on debconf-discuss/debconf-team
for that). It is just about making sure this issue is documented before
anything serious like a contract signing takes place.
Reply to: