Hi Richard, On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 04:58:11PM -0400, Richard Darst wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:05:29AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > > > We all know that Clint is quite active, and it wasn't an easy decision > > for us, too. In the sponsorship form we don't ask for much information, > > but Clint didn't provided even the minimum of information needed to make > > the decision. Having handled him special because of the work he has done > > The debconf-team attempted to give me sponsorship, and never filled > out any question. I think I could have left the field blank, and > gotten money. I now wish I had done this just to prove a point. My > point here is: saying money is given based only on one field isn't > completely true.
Yes, there were certain special cases that were decided outside of the herb team, such as in relation to the Nicaragua people. I don't know the full thought process behind these. One example from a prior year, similar to what you mentioned, is that it was decided by the whole DebConf9 orga team to offer Anto full sponsorship for DebConf10 if he wanted, before any DebConf10 herb team stuff happened. I have no idea if Anto accepted this offer. > Briefly browsing reasons, it seems there are other people who got > money who do not explain their need, including some people from > developed countries. I would be interested in doing a more complete > investigation of all of the reasons and fraction of people who > answered each part. > > Another interesting test would be to compare to past years, see what > kind of criteria were applied then. Given that there aren't announced > changes this year, someone could expect the type of answers they gave > in past years will still work this year. This would be very useful indeed, so that next year's team can be aware of additional transparency / appearance-of-impropriety gotchas and avoid them better than we did. Based on this thread we had at least the appearance of doing something wrong, even though I know nobody had corrupt intentions and I don't think anything actually improper or shady happened. We're all fallible human beings here, me and other herb team members as much as everyone else. Equally we're also trying to do the right thing, including when we fully or partially fail at that. The current emphasis on improving transparency, communication, and unimpeachability of our herb process is a great thing. It would also be useful to apply this to other highly subjective teams in DebConf, such as the talks team, though I have no reason to suspect anything corrupt or improper there either. - Jimmy Kaplowitz ji...@debian.org _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
