Re: Fund raising advertisement on the DPN (Was: [Publicity-commits] r2683 - /dpn/en/current/index.wml)
Am 12.10.2011 06:05, schrieb David Prévot:
> So I propose the following policy:
> *The DPN do not inform about fund raising initiative*
> The following exception tries to reflect our current usage:
> Once a year, mentioning the possibility to sponsor Debian (e.g. via its
> DebConf event) is acceptable (but not mandatory).
I consider that policy to be to strict. First of all, I can imagine
even more exceptions needed, think about hardware, sprints. One could
even think about "legal help" if someone doing a service for Debian
get's hurt/sued/whatever while doing so.
Some examples, which I wouldn't completely rule out but would like to
see discussed are for example:
* $debian_activist rents/lends equipment for an Debian event. The
equipment get's stolen/breaks/whatever. $debian_activisits now get's a
big bill, after doing a service for Debian.
* The provider of a Debian mirror get's sued for distributing (a part
of) Debian (in specific country/with special laws). As he can't afford
the lawsuit, he has the coice between giving the mirror up, or asking
* $non_profit_organisation is lobbying about
free_software/patents/strange_laws. While Debian isn't affected yet, it
would be easier for Debian if the $non_profit_organisation is
successful, however as always: They just called for help/money/whatever.
All of these examples could happen. And in all cases I would like to
see the concrete example discussed, instead of ruled out by policy.
Also "once a year" might not fit the needs of the DebConf, so again I'd
rather like to see it discussed case by case, instead of having a strict
> P.S.: Searching for previous fund raising related mentions in the past
> five years, I came across the last weekly issue of the DWN . It makes
> me think that we really need to put money stuff away from the DPN, and
> come back editing it.
Well, and you'll also find sponsors/donations/money mentioned in press
releases, which should be even stricter regaring money involvement, as
they _are_ public statements of the project, not just an informal
newsletter, aren't they?
PS: Please also note that back than, I was against the experiment
mentioned in that issue of the DWN.
PPS: Please also note, that back than, I was not involved in the DWN.