==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise).
I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
"financial assets":
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of *financial* assets other than the
TO's currency of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> writes:
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
I think this may be too restrictive. One of the things that came out in
the subsequent discussion is the idea of having an investment plan, and keeping assets consistent with that investment plan. Now, our investment plan might reasonably be "keep everything in the TO's currency of choice
in a bank account," but this GR as phrased would lock us into such an investment plan. I think it would be better to retain that flexibility.
There also seemed to be a lot of consensus on debian-private. Do we need
a GR? I would expect the project delegates to be responsive to the
consensus on debian-private and that we would only need a GR if there were some sort of conflict.
On June 19, 2022 2:40:01 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" <pollo@debian.org> wrote:current text would require them to be converted to cash and I don't think that would be the best thing.
Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise).
I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
"financial assets":
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of *financial* assets other than the
TO's currency of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
I'd suggest you also provide a definition. Do you intend to prevent a TO from accepting donated frequent flyer miles and keeping them long enough to provide an airplane ticket to someone who can't otherwise afford to go to Debconf? I'd say that the
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
On 6/19/22 01:43, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's
currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
What's a TO?
current text would require them to be converted to cash and I don't think that would be the best thing.Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise).
I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
"financial assets":
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of *financial* assets other than the
TO's currency of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
I'd suggest you also provide a definition. Do you intend to prevent a TO from accepting donated frequent flyer miles and keeping them long enough to provide an airplane ticket to someone who can't otherwise afford to go to Debconf? I'd say that the
The definition of "financial asset" on Wikipedia is:So no cryptocurrency or other probably easily liquidated things?
"A non-physical asset whose value is derived from a contractual claim,
such as bank deposits, bonds, and participations in companies' share capital."
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
This is a proposal for Debian to create a guideline for our TOs when
they receive donations of non-fiat assets.
It is a result of the constructive debate we had on debian-private, and hopefully it will not be too divisive :)
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 07:43:06PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
what does that even mean?
also, is there a rationale? and a benefit? and ideas, how to?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:14:31PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:current text would require them to be converted to cash and I don't think that would be the best thing.
Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise). >>>>
I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
"financial assets":
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of *financial* assets other than the
TO's currency of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
I'd suggest you also provide a definition. Do you intend to prevent a TO from accepting donated frequent flyer miles and keeping them long enough to provide an airplane ticket to someone who can't otherwise afford to go to Debconf? I'd say that the
So no cryptocurrency or other probably easily liquidated things?
The definition of "financial asset" on Wikipedia is:
"A non-physical asset whose value is derived from a contractual claim,
such as bank deposits, bonds, and participations in companies' share
capital."
On 2022-06-19 05 h 42, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 07:43:06PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
what does that even mean?
also, is there a rationale? and a benefit? and ideas, how to?
We had a nice discussion on debian-private (the thread is named
"Volatile assets, Debian money and SPI"), so I didn't feel I needed to
have a long text explaining the rationale.
For those not on that list, the TL;DR would be: a kind donor gave Debian stock (SPDR S&P 500 trust ETFs) and SPI has been holding on to it since
then.
For multiple reasons, I believe such volatile assets should be sold as
soon as possible instead of holding on to it :)
As for "how to", that's up to TOs and their local law. If they don't
want to bother having a mechanism to sell non-fiat financial assets that people give them, they can decide not to accept those kind of donations.
On 2022-06-18 21 h 45, Russ Allbery wrote:
There also seemed to be a lot of consensus on debian-private. Do we
need a GR? I would expect the project delegates to be responsive to
the consensus on debian-private and that we would only need a GR if
there were some sort of conflict.
I disagree that GRs are heavy hammers that should only be used when we
don't agree. I think "quick" GRs that spawn from strong consensus are beneficial for the project.
On 2022-06-19 03 h 18, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:the current text would require them to be converted to cash and I don't think that would be the best thing.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:14:31PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise). >>>>
I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
"financial assets":
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of *financial* assets other than the >>>> TO's currency of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
I'd suggest you also provide a definition. Do you intend to prevent a TO from accepting donated frequent flyer miles and keeping them long enough to provide an airplane ticket to someone who can't otherwise afford to go to Debconf? I'd say that
So no cryptocurrency or other probably easily liquidated things?
The definition of "financial asset" on Wikipedia is:
"A non-physical asset whose value is derived from a contractual claim,
such as bank deposits, bonds, and participations in companies' share
capital."
I'd argue cryptocurrency is a form of financial assets yes. This GR
would force TOs to liquidate donated cryptocurrency when they receive it
in the name of the Debian project.
We had a nice discussion on debian-private (the thread is named
"Volatile assets, Debian money and SPI"), so I didn't feel I needed to
have a long text explaining the rationale.
For those not on that list, the TL;DR would be: a kind donor gave Debian stock (SPDR S&P 500 trust ETFs) and SPI has been holding on to it since
then.
Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise).
I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
"financial assets":
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of *financial* assets other than the
TO's currency of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
Hi Antoine,
Am 19.06.22 um 19:31 schrieb Antoine Beaupré:
I second this GR.
I understand people might not *agree* with it, but I still think it's
worth discussing it more, especially in the open.
For discussing things, whether in the open or not, you don't need to start or second a general resolution. Usually it is the other way round. First you have a discussion, then a GR -- yet only if necessary.
I also feel there was a consensus over the *spirit* of the proposal
here, if not the letter. It seems we all *not* want Debian to speculate
on donated assets. Yes, maybe there's a better way to phrase this, but
let's not make perfect the ennemy of good and start tackling this
problem because, right now, we still *do* have that problem and I don't
see any other action taken to solve it.
While I agree that a resolution would help us, I'm not convinced a *general* resolution would be the right tool at this point in time.
In general I think we should avoid GRs in areas where we have delegations in place and no reason to overrule the delegates.
I second this GR.
I understand people might not *agree* with it, but I still think it's
worth discussing it more, especially in the open.
I also feel there was a consensus over the *spirit* of the proposal
here, if not the letter. It seems we all *not* want Debian to speculate
on donated assets. Yes, maybe there's a better way to phrase this, but
let's not make perfect the ennemy of good and start tackling this
problem because, right now, we still *do* have that problem and I don't
see any other action taken to solve it.
On 6/18/22 19:43, Louis-Philippe Vronneau wrote:
Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
This is a proposal for Debian to create a guideline for our TOs when
they receive donations of non-fiat assets.
It is a result of the constructive debate we had on debian-private, and hopefully it will not be too divisive :)
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
Pollo,
I trust your best intention but I hold that these decisions should be worked out by the Project Leader and/or appointed delegates in coordination with
TOs and with help of qualified advisers. They might decide to have a general rule but they could also weigh in on case by case basis. We should not tie their hands by passing a GR.
We may face a monetary inflation in some of the TOs host countries which could eat the hard currency up real quick. Thank you for bringing this up to the wider audience as it is important to recognize that this problem does exist.
"Milan" == Milan Kupcevic <milan@debian.org> writes:
I have a similar thinking. In particular, Debian has a treasurer teamNo, there has been no communication from pollo to the treasurer team at all.
that should be able to make a reasonable decision about this without us having to drag the entire project in it. Were they consulted about this?
Did they disagree with you, and is this your attempt at overriding them?
I have a similar thinking. In particular, Debian has a treasurer team
that should be able to make a reasonable decision about this without us having to drag the entire project in it. Were they consulted about this?
Did they disagree with you, and is this your attempt at overriding them?
I don't see GRs as "adversarial" or "a last resort to put a nail in the coffin of a divisive debate", but as a great tool we have to takeI find it difficult to not see a GR as adversarial when deciding things
collective decisions.
I don't see GRs as "adversarial" or "a last resort to put a nail in the coffin of a divisive debate", but as a great tool we have to take
collective decisions. I think we can have "nice" GRs without obvious conflicts, and they don't inherently have to be painful or exhausting.
This is a proposal for Debian to create a guideline for our TOs when
they receive donations of non-fiat assets.
It is a result of the constructive debate we had on debian-private, and hopefully it will not be too divisive :)
==== Text of GR ====
Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
==== End Text of GR ====
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:34:13 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,642 |