I really thought people working on a project like Debian would understand the meaning of the "anonymous" word. Then we blame government and politicians.
It didn't happened. It was considered and then rejected, just like bad laws. Because everyone has a chance to be listened. But one thing is being listened/read and another is trying to impose. One side asked, the other side gave answers. End. This is really annoying. Who would be up to give anonymous donations if they're not up to be "anonymous"? And anonymous should be it too for the people receiving it, BTW. There are ways. "And what's if they're narcos giving out money to Debian?" Well, it is ANONYMOUS. If you guys are not OK with it then don't accept any kind of anonymous donations and make a law about it (a-la Debian way). On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Daniel Pocock <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/12/12 20:01, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le dimanche 02 décembre 2012 à 18:31 +0100, Philipp Hug a écrit : > >>> AFAIK there was an offer of a huge "anonymous donation", which at the > end > >>> seemed more a loan, and IIRC to speed up the process and not let > discuss > >>> about lack of money. I don't know the source and I don't know if there > was > >>> string attached. > >>> Anyway that offer endured only few days because debconf-team and > localteam > >>> declined such offer. > >> > >> This is correct. After this was mentioned on IRC I asked about the > >> details of this 'donation' and figured out it's just a loan, accepting > >> some risks though, but with strings attached: The venue would need to > >> be LeCamp. > > > > Is this anonymous-donation-which-is-not-a-donation story related to the > > rumors of sponsorship from a large tobacco company? > > In fact, it has nothing to do with the tobacco company. That is > completely independent. This thread is about probity (personal > involvement of team members in financial arrangements) > > > It would worry me that it was even considered to accept money from a > > It was discussed on this thread: > > http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121115.112828.29ea0d12.en.html > > It is really important to remember that there are many companies that > some people will have issues with (e.g. logging the Amazon, testing > drugs on animals, hacking voicemail to get news stories, even one of the > existing sponsors has been mentioned in various controversies concerning > privacy) and I would propose that people with views on this send their > comments to the sponsors team private list: > > [email protected] > > Given the sensitive nature of individual sponsorship arrangements, if > people do express concerns to us privately, the sponsors team probably > needs to think of a way to consult the wider community on this without > wrongly focusing on just one company/industry because they happen to be > located near a proposed DebConf venue. Then some generic principals can > be developed to guide decisions about which sponsors are accepted. > > But as pointed out above, the reason for this particular thread is not > directly related to the tobacco company. In fact, that is one reason > why this whole thing needs to be cleared up, so that such ambiguities > won't arise if there is some anonymous sponsor later on. > _______________________________________________ > Debconf-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss > -- Jose Luis Rivas. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. GPG 0xCACAB118 0x7C4DF50D http://joseluisrivas.net/acerca - http://ghostbar.ath.cx/about
_______________________________________________ Debconf-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss
