Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I absolutely don't like the implications of that assertion. > > Well, if an entity A feels that they would benefit from paying a DD > for his Debian work, they have two choices: > > 1. They can do it publicly, or > 2. They can just work the details out with the DD and not announce > this anywhere. > > Doing #1 entails taking a lot of heat from those DD's who feel that > paying DD's is a no-no.
s/lot/small amount/;s/those DD's/at least 2 DDs/ and I am not even sure that the two people you cited in your answer to Josselin actually were talking about a third party paying a DD. > How many entities want to have their name > associated with postings like the ones we had with the Dunc-Tank > experiment? The crucial point of the Dunc-Tank experiment was that it was not "an entity A", but an effort led by the current DPL. If the DPL was employed by a company that also want to pay other developers, they might face similar opposition, but in every other case I do not expect this. After all, it has been done for long, with nobody speaking up, not even Joey and Thibaut. I can only emphasize that I, too, do not like the implications of Anthony's assertion. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
