On 2/19/20 2:00 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
At the risk of poking a little fun at recent US politics: this _really really_ reads as a /quid pro quo/.
Not really; a quid pro quo there means more than the literal "something for something". Otherwise going to the grocery store and buying an apple is quid pro quo; perhaps you can use the term like that, but then it loses any negative connotation.
The negative connotation one requires there be some corruption. For example, an officer of a company is required to act in that company's interest, not the officer's own personal interest. If that officer were to select bids based on which vendor paid the officer him/herself the most (as opposed to which benefited the company), that'd be corrupt. The underlying problem is that violation of the duty to the company. That's the type of quid pro quo that has been argued about in recent US politics.
Here, it seems pretty clear that Sam is working to benefit Debian, not himself. The DPL trying to get things of value for Debian is not corrupt, it's part of his job.