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

Expense Rules for Mini-DebConfs



Tl;DR: I think that the Mini-DebConf and Sprint process are working
great and have no plans to revisit those procedures.
But we can discuss whether we need to do that.

>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:

    >> TL;DR: Do we want BSP organizers to take on the responsibility of
    >> batching together travel reimbursement requests.

    Didier> Yes, but… I think we, as a project, need to be clear about
    Didier> what this means, along at least three axes.

    Didier> First: what types of events qualify for travel
    Didier> reimbursement?  You have mentioned BSPs, but would a
    Didier> miniDebConf also qualify? Of course, it is the expectation
    Didier> that miniDebConf attendees attend to "enhance Debian"; but
    Didier> also that they might present, or attend talks,
    Didier> presentations, etc; during which they are not (should not
    Didier> be) hunting bugs. I think such micro- conferences, although
    Didier> not explicitly Bug Squashing Parties, should also benefit.

I hope are developers are never funding bugs.  We have enough without
paying for more:-)

Seriously, I think it is well established that (mini) DebConfs are
available for travel reimbursements.  I think the procedures for
mini-DebConfs and sprints are reasonably well understood and working
well, so I wasn't planning on revisiting them at this time.

    Didier> Second: from which account is the money taken?  The answer
    Didier> might seem obvious, but let's make sure we're on the same
    Didier> line of thought. When organizing a BSP (or a miniDebConf),
    Didier> it is of good measure to try find sponsors and supporters to
    Didier> help lower the cost for attendees. In plenty of cases, for a
    Didier> multi-day event, one needs a venue, help cover food and
    Didier> accomodation costs, etc. But these events rarely last for
    Didier> more than a couple of days; so adding significant charges to
    Didier> support travel makes the funding a larger challenge. So the
    Didier> only realistic money source seems to be external; hence
    Didier> "Debian" money, not "event" money.  (The annual DebConf is
    Didier> different in terms of scale and duration, which reduces
    Didier> travel support in proportion to the other charges of the
    Didier> budget.)

I'd assume we'd use our normal policies for deciding what accounts to
use.
In terms of how much a  mini-DebConf or sprint contributes, generally
they propose a budget to the DPL.
Some of the mini-DebConfs tend to have some sponsors and tend to produce
neutral budgets, but that is not a requirement.

    Didier> Third: what rules-of-thumb, or guidelines do we want for
    Didier> travel support?  In the context of relatively _short_ events
    Didier> (2-5 days), I think we ought to put upper limits in term of
    Didier> amounts, and in terms of distance. Put differently: set
    Didier> economical and ecological limits. In this day and age, I
    Didier> don't think Debian should be supporting flying long
    Didier> distances for short events [2]. So we could have a
    Didier> duration-to-distance, or similar, criteria, as well as

I think factoring these concerns in is important to do.
But there are a number of other factors that also matter.

* If a sprint is happening, we need to sponsor the right people to
  attend that sprint, and sometimes that involves long-distance travel.

* People in Europe and to a lesser extent North America are
  geographically privileged in Debian in some significant ways.  We
  might well choose to spend money to help balance that out some.

I strongly believe that Debian should be about free software.  Every
time we mix in some other issue, we reduce our contributor base and
dilute our mission.  For that reason I'm not in favor of Debian making
environmental preferences like preferring more expensive train travel
over cheaper flights.  I don't have a problem with individual events
making such choices.
>From personal experience I note that trains are a lot less accessible to
people who are blind (and quite possibly a number of other disabilities
in some areas of the world) than planes.

You can say that you'd make exceptions for disabilities.
But asking people to declare their disability and judging them like that
makes us second class citizens.  I don't trust many of the people in
Debian who might be making those decisions to treat me with compassion
and so I'd be more likely to just not go to the event than to go through
the exercise of proving myself and my needs to someone who has limited
understanding of the cost to me of what they are understanding.





    Didier> Without common rules-of-thumb, you, as DPL, would be
    Didier> de-facto delegating the setting of travel support policies
    Didier> to events; with potentially large differences in how we
    Didier> address the requests, and I'd regret this.

I think it is OK for different events to have different policies.
We have that today.  I am not going to spend my time trying to
facilitate reconciling that.

    Didier> So what I'd would enjoy to see is exchanges along the lines
    Didier> of:

    Didier> - BSP Orga: hey DPL; we organize a 3-days/2-nights BSP and
    Didier> would like to support travel for potential attendees. We
    Didier> expect about 12 travel requests; what can you do for us?  -

I'd much rather event organizers come with a rough budget.
As DPL I certainly don't have time or desire to put together a budget
for someone.
I don't think the treasurer team is up to guaranteeing that task for
everyone.


Reply to: