* Martin Schulze: > It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or indirectly > paying *some* developers for the work they signed up to.
But this is hardly a new thing. The difference is that this time, there is a debate. Debian developers are currently not required to disclose to the project (or the public) how they make money through the privileges granted to them to the project. The current situation is roughly this: Debian exclusively assigns some roles to a few developers (either through delegation, or by other means). In some cases, it turns out that in this role, you can carry out tasks that are commercially significant to entities outside Debian, and you get paid for both your expertise and your privileges granted to you by the project. In this case, the decision who gets assigned such roles by the project certainly has economic aspects, and to me it seems that this suffers from the same risks as paying developers directly. Unfortunately, it's difficult to debate about this publicly because we can't name any specifics. NB: Ordinary package maintenance tasks are not affected by this because we have well-established conflict resolution procedures and ways to work around inactive maintainers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
