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

Re: Donations

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2006, Don Armstrong uttered the following:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> 9.1. Authority
> >>
> >> +    3. Debian Developers are not agents or employees of such
> >> +       organizations holding assets in trust for Debian, or of
> >>         each
> >> +       other or of persons in authority in the Debian Project. A
> >> +       person acting as a Developer does so as an individual, on
> >> +       their own behalf.
> >
> > I don't really understand this paragraph; are we attempting to say
> > that these organizations can't have Debian Developer's as agents or
> > employees? Or are we trying to say that the organization can't
> > require a Developer to influence the process as a function of their
> > agenecy or employment?
>  This is just an update of the wording already there, you know.

Yeah. I didn't (and still don't) understand the point of the original
language. [So it's not your fault...]

>  I think the intent is that not all DD's are automatically
>  considered agents or employees, etc. I think I have wording in
>  there somewhere that the organization may employ or give other
>  powers to individual DD's if they want, but they are not compelled
>  to do so

Hrm; perhaps making it be instead:

   4.3: Relation to Debian Associated Organizations and Individuals
   3. Debian Developers do not become agents or employees of
   organizations holding assets in trust for Debian, or of eachother,
   or of persons in authority in the Debian Project solely by the
   virtue of being Debian Developers. A person acting as a Developer
   does so as an individual, on their own behalf.

and moving this to a hypothetical 4.3 where it actually makes sense
and get rid of this paragraph where it's mired in the organization
specific language?

> >> 9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
> >>
> >> +   Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> >> +   donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a
> >>     set
> >
> > Consider s/for/to/
>         Any donation {to the organization under consideration} for the
>  Debian project ...

Perhaps saying that explicitely would make more sense.
> > I'd also suggest requiring authorization of an organization to
> > handle money in the name of Debian be announced publicly before
> > its authorization, say two weeks or so. 
>  Well, I am not sure. § means that such a decision by the DPL
>  can be immediately put on hold, well before any funds are
>  committed. I don't see how delaying decisions to authorize or
>  unauthorize organizations by two weeks really helps in the common
>  case; since just 10 developers can put a decision on hold.

My argument is that it takes time to figure out whether one should
object to the organization or not and build support for it... of
course, a counter argument is that it takes time for people to notice
that they can donate to the newly recognized organization. [My fear is
that some newly founded organization is veted by some future Evil DPL,
assets are transfered and dispersed wihtout allowing some lead time
for people to examine the situtation.]

Is there actually a need to be able to authorize an organization
without some lead time?

Don Armstrong

Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it.
 -- Richard Feynman

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: