[ Adding auditor@d.o to the list of recipients, as part of the issue here is where they'd like to maintain the list of trusted organizations. Auditors: all context is available in #613832 ] [ Quoted text reordered ]
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote: > Last but not least, at that point we would be obliged to list every Debian > sisters (or to be correct Debian Trusted Organization): as the DPL (added in > CC) said to me yesterday on IRC this kind of list already exists > (http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations) and Debian Auditors take > care of it. Adding it also in the merchandise page could turn out in > unwanted duplication of information. > > BTW, I think that the Debian Trusted Organization list deserves a specific > place on the website as it's a very official page and important page. Thanks Francesca for the Cc. It seems to me that there are two intertwined aspects at stake. The first one is where to maintain the list of trusted organizations as per constitution §5.1.11 and §9.3. Maintaining that list is up to the auditors, according to the current delegation. I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific per-organization sub-page might be warranted. > Yes, I understand that debian.ch (and similar organisation, as Debian UK > as you suggest) is a Debian sister (have an official status) AND give all > proceeds to Debian Project. > But, IMHO, for the specific purpose of the merchandise page (i.e. to inform > users of existence of Debian merchandise vendors) the more relevant > information > is the one about the destination of the proceeds (as you have stated in a > previous mail user could be more happy to see that proceeds fully or partially > goes to Debian). The second issue is whether or not trusted organizations should be blessed as "preferred" merchandise dealers in the merchandise page or not. I've mixed feelings about that. My first answer used to be that they should be, for two reasons: a) users do not need to trust an "external" entity; b) buying from them users can help more Debian, in the sense that all the money will be used for Debian goals (hardware, sprints and the like). > More important, there could be vendors who have not an official status but who > give all proceeds to Debian (and the "the vendor is a Debian organisation" > would be false and the categorization not exhaustive). On a second though however, this argument of Francesca is quite compelling. A hypothetical shop giving all its income on Debian merchandise to Debian fully satisfies point (b) above. It still does not address point (a) above though and we also risk that they only *claim* to give proceeds to Debian. All in all, I believe that *mentioning* in the merchandise page that entities like debian.ch are trusted organizations of the Debian project won't hurt. It will account for more transparency on who-is-who and will also address (a) for users who care about it. The mention can come as a note, as a new boolean column and in the future as a link to the www.d.o sub-page describing the trusted organization in question. Regarding the sorting of merchandise vendors, it would be nice to sort them according to which percentage of merchandise they give back to Debian (higher percentage first). That would be a fair criteria, useful to Debian finances. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
