Le mercredi, 2 octobre 2019, 23.33:10 h CEST Sam Hartman a écrit :
> >>>>> "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.
>
> 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.
I realize I had not read https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/HowTo recently; my
bad. It has:
> Debian, within the limit of available resources, tries hard to cover travel
> and accommodation costs for those who have no other means to cover the
> costs. Participating in developer sprints should be no personal financial
> burden to any of the participants. Usually, participants are expected to
> cover food costs by themselves, although exceptions might be considered.
Thanks for the reminder; this makes sense.
> 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.
Very fair point. On one hand I concur totally with the "Debian is about free
software only" argument. But on the other hand, I don't think it is wise for
Debian to completely ignore the growing ecological concerns, and the
environmental impact Debian (and its infrastructure, events, etc) has.
But I understand (and can live with) where you (and others) want to draw this
line.
> 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.
I was not aware of this, so thank you for making this concern known to me.
> You can say that you'd make exceptions for disabilities.
What I actually wanted to say was that I'd be willing to make exceptions; but
didn't say which would be "good" or "bad" exceptions. There are various good
reasons for exceptions; but you rightfully point out that justifying some of
these (because of too restrictive conditions) can be prohibitive. So: less
rules leads to less exceptions, I guess?
> 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.
Fair enough. But then I wonder what guidelines will be used to grant, amend,
or deny travel support budgets. Surely not "any" budget is fine (or is it)? I
tend to think it'd be of great support for the BSP organizers to know in which
ballpark the travel support budget should fall.
Best regards,
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.