Re: paying people for Debian work (Re: Why do we take so long to realise good ideas
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: paying people for Debian work (Re: Why do we take so long to realise good ideas"):
> Moving this subthread to -project too.
>
> Holger> But there's one significant difference between LTS and dunc
> Holger> tank: dunc tank was ment as an initiative inside Debian,
> Holger> while LTS is carefully set up on both sides, in- and outside
> Holger> Debian, and the money part of it is *completly* handled
> Holger> outside Debian, and I very much like this and I consider
> Holger> this a main reason why LTS is accepted by the Debian
> Holger> community.
>
> Is it true that dunc tank was an initiative inside Debian?
> When I go back and read Joerg's mail to debian-devel-announce
> summarizing the concerns with Dunc Tank, it sounds like it was outside
> Debian possibly sharing some of the same people running it.
I think it is probably not helpful to go into these kind of details
now but since you raise the point I feel I must respond. Whether
Dunc-Tank was a Debian initiative was precisely one of the seriously
contested points.
Dunc-Tank was presented as an initiative which was outside Debian, in
the sense that it was (for example) outside the purview of a GR.
However it was an initiative of the person who was currently the DPL,
and their deputy, and would have involved paying Debian core team
members for their role within Debian.
It seems to that it was not something that would have been possible
for someone without very significant standing in the project; possibly
it was only possible for the DPL.
Frankly, the idea that it was not an initiative of the DPL seems to me
to have been an artificial distinction, contrived to allow it to go
ahead without oversight from the rest of the Debian project.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: