[ I wasn't sure whether to comment on Brian's platform or stay out of this, but I think it's important to scrutinise the plan. Please see my disclaimers at the end though. ]
Brian, * You write: "Debian Project Leaders should have more time to lead rather than be buried in the set of administrative tasks they currently face" It's not clear to that I follow this argument. Right now, the DPL and treasurer team only have to maintain a relationship with a third party (the TO). Isn't that *less* work than overseeing your own organization? * You argue that "history has shown that volunteers alone aren’t enough" and that "difficult to find enough people to volunteer to do these things". I would agree with this. And having done both volunteer and paid work in this area, I can attest that there's a limit on how much admin work someone will do as a volunteer. However, Debian has historically had a rather strained relationship with paid work. One could argue that the current Debian / SPI relationship works because Debian is paying a service provider. But if Debian were to have its own foundation, you could argue that the topic of Debian paying people will come up again. You make a good point that admin work is different. But will everyone agree? If Debian starts paying for admin work, why not pay for other activities where it's been hard to find work? Maybe some would agree that this is actually a good path to go, and that a Debian Foundation would lead to more paid opportunities in the future, but I think you could easily see this as a source of much disagreement. How would you address that? Also, who is going to decide who to hire/contract? * "the DPL is no longer a special member of SPI invited to all meetings": I have to give some context on this (BTW, I don't speak for SPI, but I'm a SPI member like anyone in Debian can become). SPI used to have 2 board advisors: a representative from PostgreSQL and the current DPL. At some point SPI said: * We haven't used these advisors in years * Why pick advisors from 2 big projects when SPI serves all associated projects? * SPI's meetings are open: let's encourage everyone to participate So let me ask this: why hasn't the DPL (or a representative) attended the public SPI IRC meetings? Registered guests are mentioned in the minutes and I don't see anyone officially representing Debian. Why didn't the DPL(s) actively pursue their advisor role? * "without informing us, after 10 years of de facto practice, SPI stopped waiving their standard 5% fees on DebConf sponsorship payments" So basically this is the crux of Brian's platform. He's upset that SPI is charging their standard 5% fee on DebConf sponsorship. (And there are important questions about this change, but I think that doesn't actually matter in this context.) What matters in my view: why do you think that 0 fees should be charged on DebConf sponsorship? And how does that square with your argument that this work can't be done by volunteers. On the one hand, you argue that this needs to be paid work. On the other hand, you are upset that SPI is charging for its work. Well, I don't think you can have it both ways. Of course, this issue would go away with a Debian Foundation, but how much is that going to cost to run? Definitely not 0 since you suggest paid staff. Less than 5%? More? Fundamentally, I think you underestimate how much work it is to run a non-profit properly, and therefore how much it would cost. Have you done some numbers? How much income does Debian have each year? How much would an admin of this Debian Foundation cost? What other fees and expenses are there? Legal fees? Trademark fees? What about an external audit? This isn't explicitly in Brian's platform but he seems to believe that Debian could do it better and/or cheaper. Is there any evidence for this? Have you looked at other FOSS non-profits to see what they cost to run? Are you saying a Debian Foundation makes sense even if it's more expensive to run than paying a third party provider? (Maybe there are other benefits that would justify the cost of bringing this in house.) Martin P.S. I'm not saying there is no merit in a Debian Foundation. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. (And there are definitely things I don't like about the TO arrangement that would go away with a Debian Foundation.) My big concern is that in my view Brian completely underestimates the work and cost involved in doing this properly, and that it will just end up in yet another non-functioning non-profit. I've seen to many time people starting new non-profits to solve all problems and they just end up creating more (and similar) problems. Disclaimers: * I served on the board of the Open Source Imitative, Software Freedom Conservancy and Software in the Public Interest: I know that it's hard to run a non-profit. * I'm currently a paid contractor of SPI, so you can argue that I'm biased because of my income depends on SPI. You could also argue that I know better than many what kind of work is involved. * I am not on the SPI board and I do not speak for SPI. * I am part of the Debian treasurer team, but I don't speak for them. -- Martin Michlmayr https://www.cyrius.com/
