(resending to -www@, #681501 is now archived) Hi,
I was asked to look into the question of whether (and how) we should list Paypal on https://www.debian.org/donations. I've gone through various discussions about Paypal, including the one on debconf-team (http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20141010.131258.9c56bd7d.en.html). I agree that Paypal is far from a perfect service, for several reasons. We should clearly continue to offer alternative options for donations. However, I don't think that the known problems with Paypal are bad enough to surpass the the benefits of accepting donations via Paypal. Also, TTBOMK, the problems with Paypal are unrelated to Debian's main goals: for example, it doesn't require the use of proprietary software (even javascript). Paypal has also been used successfully already by Debian, e.g. for the OPW fundraising efforts. So I think that Paypal should be listed similarly to other donations: - not hidden in an 'other' section but listed directly similarly to Click & Pledge; - provided with a form, not just a link, if auditors decide it's suitable and useful; - if auditors decide it is useful, listed at the top of the page for donations in Euros, if we can't find a better alternative. Of course, as a good practice, Paypal should not be used for long-term storage of Debian funds. This would limit problems in case of freeze of our accounts. If one can find a good, factual document that explains the various concerns about Paypal, it could be mentioned (in a footnote, for example). There's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Criticism, but it's mostly focused on the problem of automated freezings of accounts. However, it should be mentioned as an informational message that some people have expressed concerns about Paypal, not as a message that Debian discourages the use of Paypal. As I know that some members of the www team have strong opinions about this topic, I'd like to clarify that I am not asking them to implement those changes themselves. However, I am asking them to not reject a suitable patch, and to not revert a change that would implement this. Thanks, Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
