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

Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects

Hi Paul

On 2022/03/26 01:27, Paul Wise wrote:
We have these documents related to that:


These were written by Stefano Zacchiroli in 2010 when he was DPL, he
added the hardware guidelines in 2012 and since then only very minor
edits have been made by non-DPL folks.

Are there any expenditure requests you have approved that would not fit
into the categories listed on the existing expenditure guidelines?

They all fit into those guidelines, except for the DebConf20 proceeds that we donated to Framasoft for PeerTube development, that was the one notable exception, this was handled transparently and with consensus, so I doubt that would be a problem.

What changes to the existing expenditure guidelines would you make?

I'd like it to be a bit more consistent depending on who's DPL. So far I've approved every request unless there's a good reason no to (like if it goes against our guidelines, or against the obligations that our TOs have when working with money). In the past I've seen some DPLs make some relatively small approvals quite complicated, and also denying some requests that I think should've been approved.

My goal is also to give a DD more confidence in sending through a request, I often have more work because someone tells me that they need something but then I have to do the work to convince them that it really is ok to submit a request. I want to make it easier for DDs to spend the money that was donated to them to make Debian better, and I squarely disagree with Felix that it should become any harder for DDs to spend money.

One thing people have been really concerned about when asking for Debian to buy hardware is, is what happens to the hardware after they're done with it? So far I've just told them that they can try to pass it on to another DD who might want/need it (there's some wiki page for this that I think is rarely used), or sell it and donate the proceeds back to Debian, or just keep it as a spare in case they need it again. But it would be nice to have this in writing. I also make a point of telling people that Debian is /not/ responsible for the hardware. If it breaks or needs maintenance, then it's their responsibility to take care of it (although, they could also submit another request for that if needed). So, in some ways I'd like to make it simpler, but also add some more information, build some more confidence for someone who needs to make a request, and have some more policy that applies to the DPL so that it's more consistent based on who's DPL. And if a new DPL doesn't agree with it, they can also just update it again with a notice going out to the project.


Reply to: