Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > Am Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 11:54:59AM +0100 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: >> I think this underlines a collective failure to get our act together. > > indeed, and besides what Simon mentioned about the bank situation I think > there was a certain lack of consistency between deciding on the technical > and on the financial questions. And of course the lack of urgency, since > anyway things continued thanks to Chris... So thank you for all you have > done, Chris, and thank you for taking action now to force us to get our act > together! Indeed QA has become a central part of our project infrastructure. > > I suggest the following, which resolves the lockstep between technology and > finance: > - Decide that the funds at the FSF pay for the hosting in its current form. > Ideally move the billing to Guix Foundation, and then, as we use to do > for bayfront, periodically ask the FSF to reimburse the hosting cost. > I think we have an informal consensus for this, and just require a formal > vote at the Guix spending committee and at the Guix Foundation SAC. > - Reimburse Chris for the costs incurred for hosting before this move. > As Simon has said, we have a vote for this already, but could also > start over with the exact amount once the first point is handled, so > that Chris does not pay for future hosting any more. > > Then in a separate step, other people can discuss about potential > technical changes to the hosting situation. It would probably be good > to have a small group of people, including Chris at least for a > transitory period, who take care of the sysadmin part. > > Any thoughts on this proposal?
Sounds good to me.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
