[mostly reposting what I sent to debian-private] On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 12:34:01PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I also explained that Dunc-Tank's initial experiment of funding release > manager is not a long term model for us. And as a board member, I said > that I don't intend to fund other projects with Dunc-Tank until we have > switched to another model that suits us better in general. Key principles in > my > current view of the other model are: > - each DD can register projects for which they'd like to be funded > - all DD can publicly comment the project proposals of everybody (and > hopefully improve the proposals at the same time) > - all donors can donate to any project, but those who have no specific > interest in any of the project would hopefully donate to the most > popular ones (projects could be rated by all the DD) > - and of course, everybody is free to complete one of the registered > projects for free. The fact that project proposals are documented make > that even easier. But that not compatible with how Debian actually works. Debian works by DD commiting themself to a task (maintaining a package, processing the NEW queue, taking care of orphaned packages, maintaining the Debian machines, maintaining the archive etc.) and then doing it, and the other DD expecting the task to be fullfilled, but the commited DD are conferred authority over the way the task is handled and so it is harder for other DDs to interfere.
If you commit yourself to do something and then ask for founding for performing it you are betraying the trust of the other DDs, and the authority you were granted to do it must be immediatly taken back. I have other objections, but that will be for another day. Maybe you should give a practical example, though. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
