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

Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> The idea of having a Debian Foundation sounds interesting, although I do
> share some of tbm's fears.
> From what I understand, you want this DPL election to be a referendum on
> the idea of a Debian Foundation.
> It would be really hard for me to vote for you without having a clearer
> idea of what that would entail for Debian, especially in terms of costs.
> It feels a bit like signing a blank check and hoping things go well.

The DPL is bound to operate under the constitution, and would still need to
follow 5.1.19, so you wouldn't be signing a "blank check".

   "In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting property held in
   trust for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.). Such decisions are communicated
   to the members by the Project Leader or their Delegate(s). Major expenditures
   should be proposed and debated on the mailing list before funds are disbursed."

> I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian
> Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks.

You are correct. It's going to take 6-12 months of work to create the foundation,
and that includes drafting by-laws.

> In another email you write:
> > 2) I don't believe a GR is needed, as my current plan doesn't require
> >   any changes to the constitution
> I'd be much more inclined to vote for you if you promised you would in
> fact propose a GR on this once elected.
> It would give you (and others who want to help) time to come up with a
> solid plan and let the Debian community be the final judge.

I'd like to understand this request more. We have three trusted organizations (two
of which have Debian in their names), and we didn't have a GR to form them or make
them TOs.

The GR to do what I am proposing already passed in 2006. [1] If it turns out that
additional constitutional changes are required, of course, I'd seek out a GR.

Would you be happy with the following commitments instead of a commitment to propose
a GR?

1) Share any proposed drafts for the organization's by-laws w/ debian-project for
   feedback, and consensus-building?
2) Consult with Project Members on a budget for hiring the administrative staff (As
   would be expected by the constitution)

I was trying to put my finger on what it is I don't love about GRs, and I think it's
the conflict between having a time-limited conversation and giving everyone a chance
to have their say. This can end up with everyone rushing to say what they want to
say, in a stressful compressed marathon sprint of discussion. I much prefer
open-ended discussions that either end in consensus or with an agreement that
consensus is unlikely to be reached. Of course some things require a GR, but I'd
hope that consensus was largely already built prior to starting the GR process.


[1] - https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_003

> Cheers,
> --
>   ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
>   ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
>   ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
>   ⠈⠳⣄

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: