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

partnership program: expiry and ordering

[ posting to -project as it seems to me more appropriate for the topic
  I'm raising ]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:40:13AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> As announced[1], we had a small meeting during this years FrOSCon.

Thanks for this summary!

> We agreed in proposing new procedures for the partners website and came
> up with redoing the current topics to "Community Partners", "Hosting
> Partners",  "Hardware Partners" and "Financial Partners". It was
> suggested that the current "Development Partners" should be moved into
> the "Community Partners" section as they mostly sponsor development of
> community driven projects. A discussion came up if partners need to
> reapply after a certain time, though we had no real consensus on that
> topic.

I think we should have an expiry mechanism. Partnerships where Debian is
one of the peer are done, by the 2 peers, for different reasons (or at
least this is my understanding and experience in dealing
with—unfortunately only perspective ATM—partners as DPL).

The non-Debian partner usually wants to give resources to Debian in
exchange of some visibility. Debian has the interest in getting the
resources (hardware, money, goodies, sustained work contributions on
important sub-systems, etc.) and is ready to offer visibility to the
partner in exchange of that.  As most of the resources we get for
sponsors are consumable, it is in our interest to have a sort of "expiry
date" to partnership, to encourage partners to donate again in the
future. The expiry period can be long (2 years?), and we for sure don't
want to seem picky on this kind of stuff, but I can't find a valid
reason for not having a partnership expiry period at all. Am I missing

> It was discussed whether listings should be ordered by qualitative
> criteria, such as the amount of financial support. This idea was
> dropped as no other criteria could be found for hosting and especially
> community partners. The best idea seems therefore to sort them either
> alphabetically or in order of the acceptance date.

My experience on this is mostly with conferences, which usually list
partners in order of contributions. While it's a bit "rude", I've always
found it to be very fair.  I probably don't know enough of how community
partners work (I'm offline and I can't check that either, sorry) to
understand why their contributions cannot be quantified; can you please
expand a bit on this?

Thanks again for your report!

Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: