It might be worth looking on how other organizations in our ballpark are doing
stuff.
f.e. IETF/ISOC is in similar situation to Debian/SPI. I am not directly
involved in looking into IETF financials, but they have contracts for certain
functions (Ops, RFC Editor to name few, for full list see
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 5:08 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > My biggest high level concern is the income side, since this is the most
> > difficult part and will likely also be the most controversial one.
>
> I could well be entirely wrong, but the part that I would expect to
Ximin Luo writes:
> Nobody is suggesting that it won't be a hard problem to get right, but
> progress isn't made by worrying about all the things that could possibly
> go wrong. Figuring out a blueprint for organising large-scale work
> using more directly-democratic principles would have lots o
Russ Allbery:
> [..]
> I respect the desire to try social experiments and be bold, but my counter
> question is whether Debian as a project has the right training and the
> right people to conduct a proper social experiment *here*, on *this*
> particular topic. Do we have economists? Psychologist
Russ Allbery:
> [..] The failure mode here is that we lose contributors
> because of hard feelings over who gets paid and who doesn't get paid and
> how much they get paid and how they get paid, and the project ends up
> weaker and more fragile. [..]
>
> For example, you say "democratic mandate,"
Ximin Luo writes:
> A lot of people are already paid full-time to work on Debian. Wouldn't
> it be better to additionally have some other people be paid full-time to
> work on Debian under a democratic mandate (our voting system) rather
> than under corporate orders? At the very least, it would b
Russ Allbery:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
>> My biggest high level concern is the income side, since this is the most
>> difficult part and will likely also be the most controversial one.
>
> I could well be entirely wrong, but the part that I would expect to be the
> most controversial is that, onc
dear Russ,
once again, many thanks for expressing nicely what I couldnt express
that well. My thoughts exactly.
--
tschau,
Holger, who first wanted to send this in private to Russ and
then decided against.
Adrian Bunk writes:
> My biggest high level concern is the income side, since this is the most
> difficult part and will likely also be the most controversial one.
I could well be entirely wrong, but the part that I would expect to be the
most controversial is that, once Debian starts spending p
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:57:51PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:56:16PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > > For me this implies that Debian should aim at having at least US$500k
> > > reserves, to be prepared if there is no large donation coming for a
> > > future refre
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:56:16PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > For me this implies that Debian should aim at having at least US$500k
> > reserves, to be prepared if there is no large donation coming for a
> > future refresh.
> Plus another $300k in reserves for DebConf in case those donation
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 01:50:25AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:04:24PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> >...
> > When we last crunched the numbers, maintaining a 5y refresh (to stay in
> > warranty, etc.) would require $75k-100k/yr. We've avoided that level of
> > annual ex
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:04:24PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
>...
> When we last crunched the numbers, maintaining a 5y refresh (to stay in
> warranty, etc.) would require $75k-100k/yr. We've avoided that level of
> annual expenditure because we are keeping hardware longer than 5y and
> we've ha
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 05:29:42PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> I agree that's missing.
>
> I don't think that is the important information needed to drive the
> discussions I'm hoping someone will drive.
>
> Instead I'm more interested in seeing discuss
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
I agree that's missing.
I don't think that is the important information needed to drive the
discussions I'm hoping someone will drive.
Instead I'm more interested in seeing discussions at a high level.
Talking about the issues involved in paying people to
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:32:42PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:49:25AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > So, there were two $300k donations in the last year.
> > One of these was earmarked for a DSA equipment upgrade.
> > DSA has a couple of options to pursue, but it's possib
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:49:25AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> [moving a discussion from -devel to -project where it belongs]
>
> > "Mo" == Mo Zhou writes:
>
> Mo> Hi,
> Mo> On 2019-05-29 08:38, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> Use the $300,000 on our bank accounts?
>
> So, there
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think it is probably not helpful to go into these kind of details
> now but since you raise the point I feel I must respond. Whether
> Dunc-Tank was a Debian initiative was precisely one of the seriously
> contested points.
agreed o
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: paying people for Debian work (Re: Why do we take so
long to realise good ideas"):
> Moving this subthread to -project too.
>
> Holger> But there's one significant difference between LTS and dunc
> Holger> tank: dunc tank was ment as an initiative inside Debian,
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
