On 14.04.2017 22:33, Stig Roar wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 07:28:13PM +0000, Luke wrote: >> On 04/14/2017 06:58 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: >>> On 14.04.2017 21:43, Josh Branning wrote: >>>>> So, my question is: has the Parabola community been presented and have >>>>> you discussed options and the detailed budget for the new build server? >>>>> Have you reached a consensus about this for fauno to tell me what needs >>>>> to paid for? >>>> Relevant to this question is a response from Luke, gc4j, 06/04/17 23:47. >> >> Josh is correct, that is the current information. >> Chasis just arrived, still waiting on power supply to arrive in the mail. >> >> The e-mail he referenced can be found here: >> https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2017-April/004889.html >> >> >>> That response has come with considerable delay, after everything has >>> become public. I have been asked privately to pay $400 USD on 26/03/17 >>> 12:07. That is, 10 days earlier. I consider this private request to >>> violate both the Parabola Social Contract and Parabola-Ceata Fiscal >>> Sponsorship Agreement. >> >> I assume you are referring to Emulatorman's e-mail which he sent to >> fauno and yourself. I was CC'd on it. At the time we only had a >> motherboard, cpu, and heat sinks. He provided estimated prices on >> shipping products from Urutek, New Egg, and Amazon to complete the >> server. (Chasis, ram, power supply) >> >> I've since gone ahead and gotten the other parts myself, using my own >> money, as they were cheaper to acquire locally. >> >> Answer to Q1: >> Budget cost for build server to Ceata and community = $0.00 > > > i:Exit -:PrevPg <Space>:NextPg v:View Attachm. d:Del r:Reply j:Next > ?:Help >> to paid for? >> >> Have you discussed location of the new build server? This is relevant >> for the shipping/collocation. >> >> I'm looking forward to hearing what you all have to say on this matter. >> >> Tiberiu > > I really don't get this. Is this really the changes the Social Contract > is talking about? Has it ever occured to you that Emulatorman wanted to > buy and even pay for this himself for the benefit of the whole community > and Parabola? OK, so let's say that I'm in the future want to port some > games from Lua (or whatever) to C, or even want to do some kernels, and I buy > myself a server or whatever. Is that really the changes that falls under > the Social Contract? Shouldn't the community be happy that I have some > up-to-date devices to maintain Parabola? So what if there were some > talking about this? What harm does it do to the community that the guy > doing all the maintaining wishes himself a build server? > > It's like someone has commited a huge crime for talking to eachother > about how this could come true. > > Well, as far as I know, those guys (g4jc, Emulatorman) with some direct > donations from others as well made this come true by themselves, so > technically the build server is now not owned by Parabola nor the community. > So if Emulatorman want to use this build server for Parabola or not, is > really up to him. I would guess 'no', after all the shit he and others as > to put up with, and the resistance they have met from the very beginning > of this process. The build server could have benifited Parabola, but the > - SF- 1/927: Stig Roar Re: [Dev] Q1: Do you have a consens -- > (87%)
It's never a problem to pay yourself for a machine that you would like to use for the benefit of the community. But to ask for a partial funding of the project, you need to get the okay from the community. Publicly. These are the rules the community has agreed to. I hope you can understand this. Thanks, Tiberiu _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
