Hi Raphaël, your feedback in particular is very much appreciated. Please keep in mind that I'm proposing this list purely as a practical experiment, it does nothing that can't already be done elsewhere, and if it doesn't work out after say 6 months, then so be it. All I'm looking for is an indication that it would not be a complete waste of my time to set up, that doing so has the potential to help Debian, and that some DDs would be willing to review and Second proposals. On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 12:01:05PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I would be saddened if this system turned only into a way to give our > money to other free software projects instead of using that money to help > us towards our common mission. I'm not so sure about that, there's a lot of overlap involved (e.g. reproducible builds or calamares) especially since the project resists funding direct packaging work like QA. Even assuming the initiative accidentally ends up solely donating to other existing projects, provided they benefit Debian I'd count that as successful - a contra policy guidance or GR could also be proposed if it becomes excessive. > On Fri, 02 Apr 2021, Phil Morrell wrote: > > I think this will lower the barrier for proposals. I looked up what the > > current process is and it's literally "email the DPL and convince them", > > which could be offputting without knowing how many other people support > > your idea. Similarly I would expect a lot of teams to know their own > > problem areas but be unaware of the level of support outside the team > > through multiple levels of reverse dependencies. > > It's certainly good to lower the barrier for proposals but for your Kotlin > example, the issue is more "who will be paid to to the work"? Someone has to > select a winning bid and having that kind of responsibility within Debian > is the historical friction point related to use of money in Debian. Isn't that the same issue you have for Freexian? Presumably the Proposal would be either an Executor or (implied by default) Reviewer by your terminology, so then the Seconds are agreeing who will review the work. https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/project-funding/-/blob/master/Rules-LTS.md#who-can-make-bids > IMO the bulk of the work is not in finding ideas, but on transforming > them into actionable projects Exactly my reason for proposing this new list to facilitate fleshing out of ideas collectively. Unlike -vote, I'm hoping most Amendments would be accepted by the proposer, so perhaps my Peertube example was unhelpful here. There are a lot of current suggestions that the money could be put towards some goal or category, but as you say they're not actionable. https://wiki.debian.org/BudgetIdeas > and on selecting which project can have the largest impact on Debian. I think Jonathan's comment (and indeed platform) shows that we're not at a point where that is a concern. For now I am happy giving more visibility to actionable projects with *any* reasonable impact on Debian. This also reminds me of multiple DebConfs sentiments on the bank balance to the effect of: Whenever Debian successfully manages to spend money, we're burdened with increased funding to compensate.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature