On 26/04/14 at 23:42 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Before anyone raises this point: Yes, we tried contacting[1] FFIS, but > they have not even answered in more than four weeks; we are not > confident that they would be more reactive going forward and do not > consider them an option any more. > > [...] > > Also, at least > Ganneff and me would be willing to carry on the e.V. after DebConf15 > if this is deemed useful to Debian. Given FFIS' performance (the above > isn't a one-time event only, it's been this way for a long time), this > seems likely.
I think that we need to be very careful here. Being a TO is very difficult. And building a TO that is sufficiently reliable, over several years, is even more difficult. It's not a surprise that organizations such as SPI have grown to hold assets for several projects, because scaling up is a way to amortize the costs of the various involved processes. Also, most of the organizations holding Debian's assets have at times encountered some problems. More diversity among TOs has some useful features, but also some downsides: it becomes harder to make large expenses if funds are split over several organizations; it requires more coordination work from auditors. Similarly to how DSA is trying to reduce the number of datacenters hosting Debian machines, it makes sense to keep a quite low number of TOs just to keep the interaction overhead low. So I'm not against considering the idea of keep the DC15 TO after DC15, but this will clearly have to be weighted against the disadvantages of this option. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140428200935.gb32...@xanadu.blop.info
