Bug#634986: Officially provide the list of Debian Trusted Organization
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 21/07/2011 15:16, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:24:56PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>> This is strictly linked to #613832, given that we need to define, once
>> for all, how we behave WRT Debian Trusted Organizations [1]. Given that
>> Debian money is held only by them (Debian does not exist in itself as a
>> legal organization), all of them could be listed in the donation page:
>>
>> <http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations>
>>
>> [1] technically and constituionally speaking, everything has already
>> been decided, see below.
>
> Indeed. According to Constitution, since the GR Luca has references,
> Debian should have maintained an authoritative list of Debian Trusted
> Organization; except that we haven't :-) Luk Claes (auditor) started
> collecting a list at the wiki page above and IIRC I've agreed with
> Martin Michlmayr (auditor) that the final list should reside on the
> Debian website.
Hi Martin, any news in that regard?
> A related point I'd like to mention is the potential risk of duplicating
> information as arguably one thing is a page listing Debian Trusted
> Organizations (required by Constitution) and another one is a page
> listing how to donate to Debian. There will be a huge overlap among the
> two, but there might be differences (e.g. imagine if one day we decide
> to add some social donation mechanism, that one would figure in the
> donation page but not in the Trusted Organization listing). I suggest to
> factor out the list of organizations (I've seen that done with .data
> files in the website organization) and include it from both pages.
I'd be happy to help in that regard if needed on the “technical†part,
i.e. providing the actual initial patch once the auditor gives us the
list of Debian Trusted Organization and other data needed (links, text,
or whatever), and update the needed page or pages to be defined. There
were some wording changes proposal in this bug report, I'd like a formal
acknowledgement from the auditor before changing anything (well, the
auditor is welcome to take care of these changes directly, of course!).
Regards
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=WSxL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: