On 26/11/12 21:45, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:18:52PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> Actually, there may be other options open to the DPL in this scenario >> > Thanks for taking the time of explaining to me how to do my job :-) > >
Suggesting options for discussion hardly seems like telling anybody what to do >> Although the team made a decision, a contract can not be signed if the >> budget is not endorsed by the DPL. So the DPL could defer ratification >> of the budget on any of these grounds: >> >> - to ask the debconf-team to convene another IRC meeting to discuss the >> concerns of Marga, Ana and Steve. >> > […] > >> - one concern I heard over the weekend is that some regular sponsors are >> giving money for `Debian' and it is all spent on DebConf. I don't want >> > I don't think I'm getting this right. Are you suggesting that I use the > DPL money-related prerogatives as a tactic to bend the decisions of a > Debian team in a way that is to my liking? If you're suggesting that, > No, I'm only suggesting that all the facts need to be looked at If three people have suddenly come forward with big concerns, that may or may not be relevant. Once again, a closer look at the sponsor relationships may also reveal further details that need to be documented or discussed. E.g. if sponsor X is happy for their money to go anywhere in Debian, then I'm not suggesting the DPL is deciding where the money goes, but maybe reaching out to other members of the community to ask them if they want to comment now that their budget needs are in scope. > rest assured that I would never do anything of the sort in life. When > asked to approve or refuse a budget, I will make a decision based solely > on the budget merits, i.e. on whether I think that the money at stake > would be put into good use for Debian or not. > > If it turns out that other areas of the Debian project have some `claim' over a portion of the money, or a right to be involved in the decision making process, then it would mean the DebConf budget revenue figures have to be updated. > And that would be so even if I were, personally, strongly against the > decision made by the relevant Debian team. In that case, I'd rather > escalate the matter further myself, than using DPL prerogatives as a > tactical device. > I think that is much what I am getting at - that if these issues do have merit, then the DPL budget approval is an opportunity to escalate or involve other people for comment. I'm not suggesting some `tactical' measure to impose your own (or somebody else's) preferences. All I'm trying to suggest is that the DPL budget approval is not just yes/no. With a budget bigger than ever before, it is clear that DebConf fundraising may actually compete against fundraising efforts for other parts of Debian for the next 6-12 months, and the discussion of wider issues like that may well be in scope for the budget approval. _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
