On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 09:47:38AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > I disagree with this, as I've observed in the past. For one thing, it > > doesn't seem to me that it is *that* easy to create this association. > > One argument is that, if it were so, it'd have already existed by now, > > no? > > That's a dissappointingly weak argument IMHO.
Which is why I anticipated the counterargument, which you gladly used :) Let's move on. > Furthermore, the feedback we got from various lawyers (since then), > IMHO clearly favours the creation of the new association. > > (And with a similarly weak argument, I'd be surprised if you > recommended us to go against lawyer's recommendations… :-p ). I don't have enough information on the legal arguments that you've been offered to comment on this. > > Still, one extra association in a territory where one already exists > > will undeniably increase the overall bureaucratic burden (this is a "-" > > point that is surprisingly missing from the comparison on the wiki). > > I disagree. Most bureaucratic things is stuff we will have to do > anyway: keep separate accounting for DebConf, signing contracts "as > the DebConf organizers", "organize DebConf", … Most != all. Some *some* overhead does exist. > a) non-matching membership bodies. Yes, but so what? From my POV, it seems to me that if I cannot trust debian.ch board to take the "right" decisions that are needed to have DebConf13 in Switzerland, than we do have a problem with debian.ch. Put it otherwise, I think this problem can (and should) be trivially solved via a MoU where the debian.ch board (or whoever else can speak on behalf of debian.ch) agrees to follow and support the DebConf team decisions for the duration of DebConf13 organization. > b) the risk is put on Debian trough debian.ch, not on "DebConf13": organising > a ~100k CHF conference is still a substantial financial risk. This risk is > put > on whichever association organizes the event. <snip> > In short, it puts the risk of organizing DebConf13 on Debian. Indeed. And for my point of view, all the money we're talking about are Debian money. No matter *where* those money are, it is project resources we're talking about. For me, having DebConf13 fail badly, being dissolved by a judge, <add your own worst case scenario here> is *as bad as* having debian.ch fail badly. It's no better. They are both project emanations and we should do all we can to avoid they fail. If staying on debian.ch gives us greater incentive not to fail ... even better! > > (And just in case: no, I would not consider acceptable keeping DebConf13 > > running after DebConf turning it into yet another Debian Trusted > > Organization: (…) > > I think there is a wide agreement on the need to close the DebConf13 > association reasonably shortly after DebConf. Closing that association will > not be much more bureaucratic burden than "provide conclusive accounting for > DebConf13" and "agree where the remaining money (or depts) shall go" that we > will have to do anyway. Good. > > Whatever option you choose, you'll (obviously) have my > > support and collaboration. > Good to know, thanks. As a corollary of the above: I think it's pointless to try to convince *me* about the usefulness of a DebConf13 association. At this point, I've given a lot of thought to it, and made up my mind. Similarly, I won't try to convince *you* of the merits of going debian.ch; don't worry this mail of mine is the last on this topic :-) Pick one with the DebConf team, and let's move on with the more funny parts of DebConf13 organization. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
