Hi!
On 9/28/19 11:44 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
> to finance an important development task in gcc. In particular, I'm talking
> about the one-time job to modernize the m68k backend by po
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development
task"):
> Ian Jackson:
> > Such a small, essentially honorary, contribution wouldn't distort our
> > volunteer setup, and don't need the levels of serious review and
> > enga
]] Ian Jackson
> Such a small, essentially honorary, contribution wouldn't distort our
> volunteer setup, and don't need the levels of serious review and
> engagement that a larger amount does. But it would act as a tangible
> way to express that we would like to see something done and might
> e
Hi Richard!
On 9/29/19 11:26 PM, Richard Z wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> As m68k is the oldest port of both the Linux kernel and Debian after i386,
>> it would be a shame to see it go as there is still very good upstream support
>> in the
On 9/30/19 4:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:14 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> Having said that, I'm going to unsubscribe from this list now as I realize
>> that what we do in Debian Ports is still not considered useful many others,
>> so I think it's not possible to
On 9/30/19 4:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Had I been asked for m68k hardware in this instance, I don't think I
> would have even blinked before approving the request.
The only reason I am asking is because we're currently in a situation
where we need external help. We are trying to be as cost-effec
Hi Ian!
Apologies for my late reply.
On 9/30/19 12:40 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task"):
>> To be clear, I think the work that folks are doing on the unofficial
>> Debian ports is valuable and import
n't do.
So, yeah, I do think some of the larger donors expect us to spend money
on projects that don't get a lot of commercial attention. Currently I
don't think our donors (at least those who follow us) expect us to
directly fund development, but I think we could explore changing th
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:49:52PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
>
> Besides other good reasons to say "no" to this question I'm wondering
Hi
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
Besides other good reasons to say "no" to this question I'm wondering
whether donators of our money would consider supporting gcc on m68k is a
g
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc
Ian> development task"):
>> given the reminders that Debian refrains from paying developers
>> for their time, I wonder
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development
task"):
> given the reminders that Debian refrains from paying developers for
> their time, I wonder if it would still be possible to make a small
> contribution that expresses Debian's interest a
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task"):
> To be clear, I think the work that folks are doing on the unofficial
> Debian ports is valuable and important and that the m68k GCC task is a
> good idea. I only dislike using Debian funds to p
el costs to bug-squashing parties, for instance.
I like the idea to find additional "enablers" of developments that
Debian would support. And such a $100 honorary bounty might have some
merits. If we collect a couple of them, then this would also help
defining the strategy of our development a
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:53:33AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> To be clear, I think the work that folks are doing on the unofficial
> Debian ports is valuable and important and that the m68k GCC task is a
> good idea. I only dislike using Debian funds to pay people for their
> time. I think that crow
Le Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit :
>
> In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
> internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.
>
> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean tha
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:14 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Having said that, I'm going to unsubscribe from this list now as I realize
> that what we do in Debian Ports is still not considered useful many others,
> so I think it's not possible to find an agreement.
To be clear, I think the
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
>
> Reaching those forums or even organizing a crowd funding campaign might
> be more appropriate.
>
A democratic process like that may also be appropriate to disburse funding
from the Debian Project itself. E.g. Debian Developers could each vote for
a
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> As m68k is the oldest port of both the Linux kernel and Debian after i386,
> it would be a shame to see it go as there is still very good upstream support
> in the Linux kernel with new drivers being added regularly [4],
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 12:22:21 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 9/29/19 12:13 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> >> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> >> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> > As a very simple summary, companies pay an
Hello Brock!
On 9/29/19 4:10 PM, Brock Wittrock wrote:
> 1) It was a simple enough request and reasonable in my opinion. I'm also glad
> that he was willing to ask in the first place because as some say, when you
> don't ask the answer is already no anyways, so why not ask?
>
> 2) I understand
On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 17:00 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2019-09-29 16:15:30)
[...]
> > * Freexian doesn't "use Debian volunteers", nobody is forced to work
> > for Freexian, they all asked to join the team of paid contributors.
> > But Freexian pays them for the
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2019-09-29 16:15:30)
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
> > > Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for
> > > the extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> >
> > As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (D
; Thanks,
> Brock
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:54 AM Aron Xu wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Regardless, I think you have your answer.
>> > > Absent the appearance of significant n
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
> >
> > > Regardless, I think you have your answer.
> > > Absent the appearance of significant new support, there is not
> > > sufficient interest in spending Debian funds on m68k
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> > extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
>
> As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
>
> > Regardless, I think you have your answer.
> > Absent the appearance of significant new support, there is not
> > sufficient interest in spending Debian funds on m68k gcc development.
>
> I don&#
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 01:58:13PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I don't think we have heard enough voices yet to be able to answer that
question.
Are you really asking for a long list of +1s? Ok--I agree with the
majority of expressed opinions that this is a bad idea.
At last for upstream, the difference is that (I assume, I have no
direct evidence) IBM uses revenue from their Z business to fund
upstream development, and they do more than the required minimum to
keep the port working. In that sense, the existence of the Z port is
probably not a burden on upstream
of significant new support, there is not
> sufficient interest in spending Debian funds on m68k gcc development.
I don't think we have heard enough voices yet to be able to answer that
question.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub..
Hi Hector,
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:49 PM Hector Oron wrote:
> Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:20:
> > And there are embedded open source Coldfire boards being developed:
> >
> > > http://sysam.it/cff_amcore.html
> > > http://sysam.it/cff_stmark2.h
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:48:51PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les
> 12:20:
.
> > As Linus stated in his mail, the Amiga never dies:
> >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/24/993
>
> Reaching those forums or even o
On 9/29/19 12:48 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:20:
>
>> I communicated the issue to multiple mailing lists, so I assume the active
>> m68k people have received my mail. But I haven't heard back from them.
>
> In particular,
ent and is more focused on understanding positions than judging
them or persuading others.
Regardless, I think you have your answer.
Absent the appearance of significant new support, there is not
sufficient interest in spending Debian funds on m68k gcc development.
--Sam
Hello,
Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:20:
> I communicated the issue to multiple mailing lists, so I assume the active
> m68k people have received my mail. But I haven't heard back from them.
In particular, have you reached to Andreas Schwab?
(> Is t
On 9/29/19 12:13 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
>> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
>
> As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and Debian
On 9/29/19 12:07 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
>> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
>
> I have been looking at
> https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/m68k, I was expecting
> some answers to the questions proposed at
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-cr
Hello,
Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:06:
> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
unrelated
Hello,
Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
del dia ds., 28 de set. 2019 a les 11:44:
> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
I have been looking at
https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/m68k, I was expecting
some answers to the questions proposed at
h
On 9/28/19 9:07 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely
> demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work
> on tasks that up to now have been volunteer based (where volunteer
> of course can include a company volunteering emp
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:07:51PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > what about keeping old contributors attracted?
> I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely
> demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work
> on tasks that up to now have been volunteer
On 9/29/19 3:14 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds,
>
> Do you have any examples of this? AFAIK we don't support development
> nor exte
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds,
Do you have any examples of this? AFAIK we don't support development
nor external projects using Debian funds. The only exception I can
thi
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 1:38 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> GSOC exist are the very proof that it’s perfectly normal to support one-time
> development tasks through funding efforts.
I think that the purpose of GSoC (and other outreach programmes) is
(or should be) mainly to gr
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
>afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
>that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.
>
>So the m68k port seems to be
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 14:11:22 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> > Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> > otherwise.
>
> what about
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>
>> I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on
>> mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up
>> things. Sorry for that.
>
> Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people u
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on
> mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up
> things. Sorry for that.
Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people unless explicitly requested.
[...]
> But that’s just your personal opini
t; ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>
>> As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is
>> something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence
>> requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task.
>
> The required level of maint
Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists?
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is
> something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence
> requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the t
7;s not about
> the number of warm bodies, so if there's just a single person who is
> able to do this work and they don't have the time, the port is missing
> absolutely critical manpower.
As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is something that
goes a litt
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Hello!
>
> On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support
> >> would
> >> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> >> have already opened a tracker bug upst
Hello!
On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
>> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
>> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
>> linked t
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> otherwise.
what about keeping old contributors attracted?
--
cheers,
Holger
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
> linked the issue to BountySource
I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.
So the m68k port seems to be only a fun hobby for a small group of
existing developers and users.
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200
...
> to "MODE_CC" as described in [1].
>
> In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
> internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.
...
> I have already talked to the DPL personall
Hi,
On 2019-09-28 11:44, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
Just for clarification, what you call "Debian Ports team" is the group
of porters working on some of the ports hosted on the "Debian Ports" [1]
service
Hello!
I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
to finance an important development task in gcc. In particular, I'm talking
about the one-time job to modernize the m68k backend by porting it from "CC0"
to "MODE_CC" as described i
Philip Hands dijo [Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 09:47:18AM +0100]:
> Manu Sporny writes:
> ...
> That is an assumption that I happen to think is completely unfounded.
>
> IBM tested various ways of incentivising coders decades ago -- almost
> (...)
> We tried DuncTank -- I'd contend that the net amount o
On 06/16/2013 04:47 AM, Philip Hands wrote:
> Manu Sporny writes: ...
>> With respect to Debian-packaged software, if we address both
>> issues, the benefit is that more resources can be directed toward
>> Free Software development.
>
> It is bound to direct money
* Manu Sporny:
> As an aside, PaySwarm is currency agnostic. The commercial
> implementation of it (Meritora) deals with USD today, has plans for Euro
> (and a few other national currencies) within a year, and Bitcoin shortly
> after that.
For the Euro, we already have the SEPA system, which is v
On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 13:25 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> If you're seriously attempting to equate "I'll buy you a beer if you
> help me" with "corrupt bribery", then I suspect the net effect is
> going to be that people stop reading the rest of your argument.
It's not serious, it's absurdism. A
On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 07:59 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 09:47 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > The idea that it's currently impossible to fund Free Software is
> > nonsense. See IBM, HP, Canonical, my customers, anyone that's ever
> > said to a DD (or anyone else for that matte
epository and
indexing it is advertising. Debian already seeks to have a relationship
with upstreams and enfeebling upstream development is not a good way to
have that relationship play out.
I'm happy to see more research on the psychological effects of money in
software. But I will say that if there
Manu Sporny writes:
...
> With respect to Debian-packaged software, if we address both issues,
> the benefit is that more resources can be directed toward Free
> Software development.
That is an assumption that I happen to think is completely unfounded.
IBM tested various ways of ince
On Sb, 15 iun 13, 21:38:24, Manu Sporny wrote:
>
> Yes, we probably don't want to create a Mos Eisley in Debian. However,
> knowing that you can go somewhere to hire Debian developers to fix
> issues that you're having with the system would be very helpful for
> companies (like ours and the ones w
On 06/15/2013 02:18 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:25:26AM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
>> Charles Plessy wrote:
>>> In the case of Debian, I share with others the concern of having
>>> the packages as a source of revenue
>>
>> How about making fixed bugs a source of revenue
On 06/14/2013 09:45 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> thanks for your work on web payments. I hope that they will be a
> lead contribution to the development of Free works.
And thanks to you for taking part in the conversation and helping us
build something that will hopefully lead to more res
On 06/14/2013 07:29 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> I disagree. Some packages make _a lot_ of work and some people
>> spend thousands of hours to make Debian an excellent distribution
>> and the package in particular useful and maintainable. This is in
>> many cases not less work than being ups
the second is figuring out how to get something of
value to them. :)
With respect to Debian-packaged software, if we address both issues, the
benefit is that more resources can be directed toward Free Software
development.
Even finding the correct Debian Developer to send money to is a very
difficu
On 06/14/2013 05:24 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:14:27PM -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> I agree, which is why the payment details live completely outside
>> the Debian systems. The only thing you'd need to initiate payment
>> is an e-mail address, or a PaySwarm financial a
s that you're having with the system would be very helpful for
companies (like ours and the ones we sub-contract from) that build
products on top of Debian.
There is already a fantastic amount of money that is involved in the
development of Debian, it's just hidden.
-- manu
--
Manu
ners. In other
> words, there is no direct financial benefit to be had, and thus I
> don't expect people to be interested in joining purely for financial
> benefit.
This would be a nice result of this system. Very very nice. I would love
if donations for a package went to a s
* Wouter Verhelst , 2013-06-15, 11:48:
What happens with the money should be decided by the maintainers of the
package. Before you'll see "flocking", there will have been such a
decision already (otherwise there's no money and thus no "flocking").
Given that, I can see only a few possible outco
On 14-06-13 23:24, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Right, but this leads to one of two things:
>
> - No money is shared with dependencies (leading to people flocking to
> awesomewm, gnome, kde, chrome, wine, apache2, etc)
>
> - Money is shared with dependencies (leading to people flocking to
>
On 15-06-13 06:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the tension gets much worse if
> the project is explicitly deciding to pay some people and not others.
While that is true, I do not believe that the proposed scheme results in
"the project (...) deciding to pay". If done right, this could simply be
On Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> I agree. It would add a whole new dimension to NMU'ing, orphaning,
> adopting, and salvaging packages with a large user base. For example,
> currently most people would probably happily accept co-maintainers even
> if they're confident that they cou
Hi,
On Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There were some past experiments with this in Debian, and they caused a
> lot of social controversy.
>
> One of the problems with paying for work in the Debian context is that
> we're a world-wide project that welcomes contributions from everyo
Le Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:25:26AM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > In the case of Debian, I share with others the concern of having the
> > packages
> > as a source of revenue
>
> How about making fixed bugs a source of revenue?
I do not see how to fit this in the PaySwarm
On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 00:25 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > In the case of Debian, I share with others the concern of having the
> > packages
> > as a source of revenue
>
> How about making fixed bugs a source of revenue?
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-11-13/
Ben.
--
Charles Plessy wrote:
> In the case of Debian, I share with others the concern of having the packages
> as a source of revenue
How about making fixed bugs a source of revenue?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Martin Owens writes:
> I feel much better about paying for work to be done than tipping, it
> feels more right. Although it requires larger pools of money and a more
> forthright approach deciding where this resource should be plowed in
> order to curate the larger design. Debian hasn't been much
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 07:20 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Payment systems in general tend to lead to "paybullying", which is
> something I'd really (really) like to avoid. I've always loved how
> un-corporate the Debian community is.
There are two reasons money gets given to people.
a. Money i
the package lists the upstream project donation account, then we
>do that.
> 3. If there is no such information, then we send the money to the
>Debian project.
Dear Manu,
thanks for your work on web payments. I hope that they will be a lead
contribution to the development of Free
Paul Wise writes:
> I am very concerned about motivations of Debian project volunteers
> being distorted by money so I would suggest only allowing donations to
> Debian as a whole or directly to individual upstream projects.
I agree. It would add a whole new dimension to NMU'ing, orphaning,
adopt
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 14.06.2013 15:52, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> She/he is doing a lot of work for sure, but I appreciate the software, not
>> that it is packaged with this. That I can get this software easily while
>> using Debian is something the whole projec
ld serve are technical users who are able to involve themselves
> > in the project when they need it.
> >
> > Excluding people with money is just another way of excluding people
> > from Free Software development. I'm not so sure it's been as healthy
> > for u
On 06/14/2013 09:52 AM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Manu Sporny
> wrote:
>> A deeper discussion of the social concerns and solutions with
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/deity/2013/06/msg00054.html
>
> I thought this was pretty shallow, but anyway:
Well, I meant
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:14:27PM -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> I agree, which is why the payment details live completely outside the
> Debian systems. The only thing you'd need to initiate payment is an
> e-mail address, or a PaySwarm financial account address, which looks
> like this:
>
> https:/
On 06/14/2013 07:20 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> In particular, I have concerns on how people *collect* this money.
> In the case of a package maintainer, we don't require we know who
> they are, nor their legal name, or even where the live. Just an
> active, working email and good changes that we
roject when they need it.
>
> Excluding people with money is just another way of excluding people
> from Free Software development. I'm not so sure it's been as healthy
> for us or our users as assumed here.
I think this is an excellent point. The people that use Debia
On 06/13/2013 10:33 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> We already have means of donating to Debian. Making that more
> accessible is on the todo and probably your work could help out
> here.
>
> http://www.debian.org/donations
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2013/05/msg00025.html
Great, would love to
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> I'd like to add a feature to apt that enables people to donate money or
> crowdfund a particular project or developer. The inspiration for the
> project comes from [1]Gittip.
Another issue/can of worms: Someone started a thread on an ubuntu li
Hi,
On 14.06.2013 15:52, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> She/he is doing a lot of work for sure, but I appreciate the software, not
> that it is packaged with this. That I can get this software easily while
> using Debian is something the whole project is responsible for, not just
> the person who hap
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> A deeper discussion of the social concerns and solutions with
> integrating donations and fundraising into Debian packages can be found
> here:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/deity/2013/06/msg00054.html
I thought this was pretty shallow, but an
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:03:36PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
[..]
> work. That's all fine. We have a mechanism in place to help people
> donate money to Debian as a whole. That's also fine. But I'd very much
> rather keep both things separate — Not instate mechanisms in Debian to
> get funds to ind
way of excluding people from
Free Software development. I'm not so sure it's been as healthy for us
or our users as assumed here.
Martin,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
Paul Wise dijo [Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:33:58AM +0800]:
> (...)
> Tying donations to one payment processor doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
>
> I am very concerned about motivations of Debian project volunteers
> being distorted by money so I would suggest only allowing donations to
> Debian
We already have means of donating to Debian. Making that more
accessible is on the todo and probably your work could help out here.
http://www.debian.org/donations
http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2013/05/msg00025.html
We have a mechanism for maintainers to point folks at upstream
donation page
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
