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

Re: Sruthi's platform


On 3/22/24 16:13, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

Joost van Baal-Ilić <joostvb-debian@mdcc.cx> wrote on 22/03/2024 at 09:54:35+0100:


On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:51:48AM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
<snip>

PS: I am eagerly awaiting a platform from
Sruthi Chandran . Up to now there still is the old one at
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/platforms/srud .

Oops: apparently I missed https://www.debian.org/vote/2024/platforms/srud .
Sorry.

And thanks for opening the rig:

I have one question regarding Sruthi's platform.

In it, it is stated that: " I would like to revisit our relationship
with the existing trusted organisations, fund management procedure and
if needed, explore the possibilities of having more TOs to reduce
dependency on one or two. During DebConf23 organising, we had to face
numerous fund distribution issues. Some of it definitely was specific to
Indian scenario, but still I could think of a lot of improvement that
can be done with respect to fund distribution through TOs."

Being Debian France's treasurer since 2019 (dunno yet if treasurer will
be my main endeavour should I be reelected this year, but I'll
definitely continue to help as much as I can whatever my role becomes),
I have two issues:

  1. Many TOs create more liabilities: I have a certain memory of ffis
     eV, which disappeared with Debian assets. It's already hard to
     follow how things go under three TOs, so if we go to more, how do
     you expect to cope and avoid similar scenarii or worse?
I am also aware of such disappearance. Having TOs with just 1-2 people responsible is a warning sign. We should act before it is too late.
If we are going for more TOs, it would be ensured that there is a team of people and a good governing structure before committing. Regular review of the functioning of the TOs would be done and revoke agreements with TOs that shows signs of collapse.
About monitoring assets in TOs, regular reporting would be set as a requirement in the agreement. DPL or may be someone delegated (Treasurers?) would have to ensure the reporting is happening regularly.
These are some thoughts I have with my limited understanding of TOs and their relation with Debian. Once I have more clear picture, I might get some more ideas. 


  2. SPI is too centric in the TO ecosystem.

I completely agree!


     After having spent two years in DF Treasurer, and more than 30 to
     50% of my Debian dedicated time attending to it, I learnt that a)
     SPI takes 5% of anything it receives for Debian (Debian France does
     not do that and will never do that) and b) it own 90% of Debian
     assets while it's very slow to process much things and is reluctant
     to rebalance these.

     What's "funny" is that this situation led DebConf organizers to ask
     us to become the spine of DebConf registration financial aspects, as
     it seems despite being alone (not anymore since the end of 2022, <3
     jipege) and not paid for it, I'm more reactive (and yet, some people
     could tell that sometimes I take far too much time, and I'd like to
     apologize for that) on these matters, and also keen on trying to
     find solutions when things go outside of the defined frame.
True in my experience too. Debian France and Debian.ch had very short turn around times. 

     So, what seems important to me is rather this aspect. How did we get
     here? What do we intent do to about it? Incorporating Debian is a
     fine idea to me, and I'd still be happy to manage Debian assets, but
     at some point, the dyfunctional aspect, to me, is rather the way SPI
     evolved and the relation that resulted from this evolution.
How did we get here - I do not know. A lot of research would be needed to understand that or someone with more historic understanding could help here.
Having 90% of assets in a single TO itself is not a good thing. That is like putting all the eggs in one basket. I suggested more TOs mainly to redistribute these assets. I know this would be a herculean task, but I would like to at least get it started.
I do agree on your point of why things are dysfunctional. When things have evolved and things are not looking good, we should revisit the whole thing. This also is not going to be an easy task. 



I'd like to hear both your feelings on this, and I'd really appreciate
to get Jonathan's insights on this, too, as he did the DPL job for a
long time and might have clues I don't have and failed to get from him
(bc he's busy) over IRC chat.

Thanks

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xC7EA1BE1574DED5D.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: