Re: New policy is not consensual
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 21, 2011, at 03:31, David Prévot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/11/2011 11:17, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
>
>> As you might have noticed, I send some mails. Let's first see, if we
>> can reach a consensus, let's say... by the end of the week.
>
> Alexander, you wrote this message two weeks ago, is there any chance you
> could try and help us find a way out of the current issue? Even if we're
> not able to address the general case, as a general rule or something
> like that, maybe addressing the specific case that raised the initial
> thread could permit us to go back working on the DPN.
I think reaching a consensus would be a good idea. I think we should reach the consensus without forcing tolimar to mediate since we can follow his suggestions earlier in this thread.
> TL;DR: Jeremiah's remarks on the list makes me think I might have been
> misunderstood. While discussing off list this issue with other persons,
> it seems like this request is not completely silly, so let me try to
> express the reason why I believe that Debian should not promote this
> initiative.
If I've misunderstood you, then I apologize, I don't mean to misrepresent your ideas and I appreciate that you clarify them.
>
> Debian currently does not claim that people should give it money in
> order to get free stuff. Debian currently doesn't act a la Wikipedia
> with “give us money” campaigns. If the Debian project wants to take
> position in favor of such campaign (for itself), I do believe this
> decision should not be taken lightly, and may deserve a rationale debate
> about it.
>
> If Debian promotes (by mentioning the existence of) a third party
> initiative claiming that “give us money” campaigns are fine in order to
> get free stuff, in the name of good for Debian, Debian would de facto
> claim that such initiative is fine, bypassing the rationale debate it
> may need.
>
> Until an official Debian position emerge in favor of this kind of
> fund-raising campaigns, I propose that the DPN editors won't relay them
> without at least an internal consensus.
I thought we had come close to an internal consensus. Namely,
- - Discussion of money in the context of Debian's volunteer work is sensitive.
- - The DPN will discuss and on occasion edit snippets that seem off topic.
- - The DPN will focus on the readers since that matches Debian's focus on its users.
- - Care will be taken to always respect Debian's non-profit status.
These were things that seemed to be the common denominators of this thread, but of course we can continue to refine.
Ultimately what is most important is Debian's non-profit status. That is the mechanism which allows Debian to receive money and hardware so that it can continue to host repos, have conferences, sprints, etc. Debian cannot function without money of course, how would the electric bills get paid for the various Debian servers? As long as we continue to ensure that not only Debian's non-profit status is secured but the volunteer spirit is preserved then I think we'll be able to publish relevant news.
Regards,
Jeremiah
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)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=mp7G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: