Debian Bug report logs - #613832
www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page

Package: www.debian.org; Maintainer for www.debian.org is Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:33:01 UTC

Owned by: madamezou@yahoo.it

Severity: normal

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, luca@pca.it, debian-publicity@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:33:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to luca@pca.it, debian-publicity@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:33:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:31:17 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hi there!

I think we need to document this somewhere and with my events@d.o hat on
this is the BTS.  Please keep it cc:ed when the discussion is relevant
or follow-up on debian-www@: this is a website problem, as I just wrote
in the announcement for the new events@d.o handling [1].

[1] Message-ID: <87tyg2g6ed.fsf@gismo.pca.it>
    URL: <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c87tyg2g6ed.fsf%40gismo.pca.it%3e>

The original email I replied to is at [2].

[2] Message-ID: <201102171548.43246@fortytwo.ch>
    URL: <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c201102171548.43246%40fortytwo.ch%3e>

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:47:08 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 17 February 2011 14.03:22 Luca Capello wrote:
>> [14] <http://www.debian.org/misc/merchandise>
>
> Hmm.  Umbrellas are missing in debian.ch's entry :-)

Noted, but I still need to acquaint myself with WML [3], if someone from
the Webmaster team wants to quickly fix it, please go on.

[3] <http://www.debian.org/devel/website/>

> More importantly: on one hand, we don't endorse any specific vendor, but 
> otoh debian.ch isn't a commercial vendor but the money owned by it is fully 
> under the authority of the Debian project. I wonder if this should be 
> indicated.  Perhaps for each shop add to the listing "commercial vendor" / 
> "commercial vendor, part of the income goes to the Debian project" / "part 
> of the Debian project"?  Not sure what the exact terms should be, but I 
> guess at least some people will be happy to prefer ordering stuff from 
> places that are closely linked with Debian.

Yesterday, while reviewing debian-www@ spam [4] I found out something
related which should be taken care of when we are going to restructure
that page [5].  No flames, please.

[4] <http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Webmaster/SpamClean#preview>
[5] Message-ID: <20100526143008.GA19199@anguilla.debian.or.at>
    URL: <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c20100526143008.GA19199%40anguilla.debian.or.at%3e>

> (Disclaimer: Yes, I *am* on the debian.ch board.)

Again, no flames, please.

That being said, it does not matter who is on the board and who is not
and for those who do not know that already, I am the current debian.ch
president.

Yes, debian.ch *is* a special case, no matter what other people say.  It
is a special case exactly as any other *official* Debian sister
association.

Yes, I agree that we need a special case for these sister association,
but *only* if, as Adrian already wrote in his reply, the money that they
own is under the authority of the Debian project.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:21:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Francesca Ciceri <madamezou@yahoo.it>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:21:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Francesca Ciceri <madamezou@yahoo.it>
To: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>, 613832@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-www@lists.debian.org, events@debian.org, avbidder@fortytwo.ch
Subject: Re: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:17:58 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi,


On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:31:17PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> Package: www.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> 
> Hi there!
> 
> I think we need to document this somewhere and with my events@d.o hat on
> this is the BTS.  Please keep it cc:ed when the discussion is relevant
> or follow-up on debian-www@: this is a website problem, as I just wrote
> in the announcement for the new events@d.o handling [1].
> 
> [1] Message-ID: <87tyg2g6ed.fsf@gismo.pca.it>
>     URL: <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c87tyg2g6ed.fsf%40gismo.pca.it%3e>
> 
> The original email I replied to is at [2].
> 
> [2] Message-ID: <201102171548.43246@fortytwo.ch>
>     URL: <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c201102171548.43246%40fortytwo.ch%3e>
> 
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:47:08 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 February 2011 14.03:22 Luca Capello wrote:
> >> [14] <http://www.debian.org/misc/merchandise>
> >
> > Hmm.  Umbrellas are missing in debian.ch's entry :-)
> 
> Noted, but I still need to acquaint myself with WML [3], if someone from
> the Webmaster team wants to quickly fix it, please go on.
> 
> [3] <http://www.debian.org/devel/website/>

Done. The changes will be visible in few hours.



> > More importantly: on one hand, we don't endorse any specific vendor, but 
> > otoh debian.ch isn't a commercial vendor but the money owned by it is fully 
> > under the authority of the Debian project. I wonder if this should be 
> > indicated.  Perhaps for each shop add to the listing "commercial vendor" / 
> > "commercial vendor, part of the income goes to the Debian project" / "part 
> > of the Debian project"?  Not sure what the exact terms should be, but I 
> > guess at least some people will be happy to prefer ordering stuff from 
> > places that are closely linked with Debian.
> 
> Yesterday, while reviewing debian-www@ spam [4] I found out something
> related which should be taken care of when we are going to restructure
> that page [5].  No flames, please.
> 
> [4] <http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Webmaster/SpamClean#preview>
> [5] Message-ID: <20100526143008.GA19199@anguilla.debian.or.at>
>     URL: <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c20100526143008.GA19199%40anguilla.debian.or.at%3e>
> 
> > (Disclaimer: Yes, I *am* on the debian.ch board.)
> 
> Again, no flames, please.
> 
> That being said, it does not matter who is on the board and who is not
> and for those who do not know that already, I am the current debian.ch
> president.
> 
> Yes, debian.ch *is* a special case, no matter what other people say.  It
> is a special case exactly as any other *official* Debian sister
> association.
> 
> Yes, I agree that we need a special case for these sister association,
> but *only* if, as Adrian already wrote in his reply, the money that they
> own is under the authority of the Debian project.
> 
> Thx, bye,
> Gismo / Luca

I'm not completely sure to have understand your request.
If you're asking for a further entry for vendors, with a statement of which
part of the income goes to Debian (and/or if a part of the income goes to
Debian), IMO we can add it. 

In that case, my patch would be something like the attached ones (for now I've
added data about proceeds only for debian.ch - in the patch - if we'll all
agree on it I'll collect data also about others vendors).

Note that as I'm not a native english speaker the statements added in the
patch need a proofread.

So, what you think about it?

Cheers,
Francesca
[patch.txt (text/plain, attachment)]
[patch2.txt (text/plain, attachment)]
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>
To: Francesca Ciceri <madamezou@yahoo.it>
Cc: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>, 613832@bugs.debian.org, debian-www@lists.debian.org, events@debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:36:08 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thursday 17 February 2011 19.17:58 Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> So, what you think about it?

Yes, I think the patch shows the direction I had in mind. Not sure if it 
should say for debian.ch (and other such organisations, if they should come 
to be listed here) "the vendor is a Debian organisation" instead of "gives 
all proceeds to Debian" - debian.ch does have official status.

(As Luca said: this is not to single out debian.ch.  There may be other 
organsations with similar status that do their own merchandising -- Debian 
UK? -- and the same holds for them, too.)

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
How to overclock the board to the attachment from Windows?

You should telnet from the floppy disk and from the tools menu inside
Netscape you either never have to log from the POP3 miditower, or can't
debug a clock of a OpenGL file of a software of a BIOS in order to
explore the editor.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:30:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Francesca Ciceri <madamezou@yahoo.it>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:30:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Francesca Ciceri <madamezou@yahoo.it>
To: Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>
Cc: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>, 613832@bugs.debian.org, debian-www@lists.debian.org, events@debian.org, leader@debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:27:35 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 08:36:08AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 17 February 2011 19.17:58 Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> > So, what you think about it?
> 
> Yes, I think the patch shows the direction I had in mind. Not sure if it 
> should say for debian.ch (and other such organisations, if they should come 
> to be listed here) "the vendor is a Debian organisation" instead of "gives 
> all proceeds to Debian" - debian.ch does have official status.
> 
> (As Luca said: this is not to single out debian.ch.  There may be other 
> organsations with similar status that do their own merchandising -- Debian 
> UK? -- and the same holds for them, too.)
> 
> cheers
> -- vbi
> 

Yes, I understand that debian.ch (and similar organisation, as Debian UK
as you suggest) is a Debian sister (have an official status) AND give all
proceeds to Debian Project.
But, IMHO, for the specific purpose of the merchandise page (i.e. to inform
users of existence of Debian merchandise vendors) the more relevant information
is the one about the destination of the proceeds (as you have stated in a
previous mail user could be more happy to see that proceeds fully or partially
goes to Debian).

More important, there could be vendors who have not an official status but who
give all proceeds to Debian (and the "the vendor is a Debian organisation"
would be false and the categorization not exhaustive).

Last but not least, at that point we would be obliged to list every Debian
sisters (or to be correct Debian Trusted Organization): as the DPL (added in
CC) said to me yesterday on IRC this kind of list already exists
(http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations) and Debian Auditors take
care of it. Adding it also in the merchandise page could turn out in
unwanted duplication of information.

BTW, I think that the Debian Trusted Organization list deserves a specific
place on the website as it's a very official page and important page.

Cheers, 
Francesca

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Owner recorded as madamezou@yahoo.it. Request was from madamezou@yahoo.it to control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:45:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #27 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org>
To: Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>, Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>, auditor@debian.org
Cc: 613832@bugs.debian.org, events@debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:43:43 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
[ Adding auditor@d.o to the list of recipients, as part of the issue
  here is where they'd like to maintain the list of trusted
  organizations. Auditors: all context is available in #613832 ]
[ Quoted text reordered ]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> Last but not least, at that point we would be obliged to list every Debian
> sisters (or to be correct Debian Trusted Organization): as the DPL (added in
> CC) said to me yesterday on IRC this kind of list already exists
> (http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations) and Debian Auditors take
> care of it. Adding it also in the merchandise page could turn out in
> unwanted duplication of information.
> 
> BTW, I think that the Debian Trusted Organization list deserves a specific
> place on the website as it's a very official page and important page.

Thanks Francesca for the Cc. It seems to me that there are two
intertwined aspects at stake. The first one is where to maintain the
list of trusted organizations as per constitution §5.1.11 and
§9.3. Maintaining that list is up to the auditors, according to the
current delegation.

I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was
easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I
believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on
www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how
important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific
per-organization sub-page might be warranted.

> Yes, I understand that debian.ch (and similar organisation, as Debian UK
> as you suggest) is a Debian sister (have an official status) AND give all
> proceeds to Debian Project.
> But, IMHO, for the specific purpose of the merchandise page (i.e. to inform
> users of existence of Debian merchandise vendors) the more relevant information
> is the one about the destination of the proceeds (as you have stated in a
> previous mail user could be more happy to see that proceeds fully or partially
> goes to Debian).

The second issue is whether or not trusted organizations should be
blessed as "preferred" merchandise dealers in the merchandise page or
not. I've mixed feelings about that. My first answer used to be that
they should be, for two reasons: a) users do not need to trust an
"external" entity; b) buying from them users can help more Debian, in
the sense that all the money will be used for Debian goals (hardware,
sprints and the like).

> More important, there could be vendors who have not an official status but who
> give all proceeds to Debian (and the "the vendor is a Debian organisation"
> would be false and the categorization not exhaustive).

On a second though however, this argument of Francesca is quite
compelling. A hypothetical shop giving all its income on Debian
merchandise to Debian fully satisfies point (b) above.

It still does not address point (a) above though and we also risk that
they only *claim* to give proceeds to Debian.

All in all, I believe that *mentioning* in the merchandise page that
entities like debian.ch are trusted organizations of the Debian project
won't hurt. It will account for more transparency on who-is-who and will
also address (a) for users who care about it. The mention can come as a
note, as a new boolean column and in the future as a link to the www.d.o
sub-page describing the trusted organization in question.

Regarding the sorting of merchandise vendors, it would be nice to sort
them according to which percentage of merchandise they give back to
Debian (higher percentage first). That would be a fair criteria, useful
to Debian finances.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:45:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it. (Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:45:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>
To: 613832@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>, auditor@debian.org, events@debian.org, Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org>, info@debian.ch
Subject: Re: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:41:58 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
tags 613832 + patch
thanks

Hi there!

Adding info@debian.ch to the cc: given that it is used as an example,
please someone on the board corrects me if something below is wrong.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:43:43 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Quoted text reordered ]

Strange, I found Francesca's reply quite clear and linear/successive,
especially considering that the two problems we are discussing are yes
linked, but the solution is independent from one to the other (read
below for more details).

> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
>> Last but not least, at that point we would be obliged to list every Debian
>> sisters (or to be correct Debian Trusted Organization): 

No, we should not assume that any random Trusted Organization sells
merchandise, which by no means is sometime even more time consuming that
maintaining a package.

>> as the DPL (added in CC) said to me yesterday on IRC this kind of
>> list already exists (http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations)
>> and Debian Auditors take care of it. Adding it also in the merchandise
>> page could turn out in unwanted duplication of information.
>>
>> BTW, I think that the Debian Trusted Organization list deserves a specific
>> place on the website as it's a very official page and important page.
>
> Thanks Francesca for the Cc. It seems to me that there are two
> intertwined aspects at stake. The first one is where to maintain the
> list of trusted organizations as per constitution §5.1.11 and
> §9.3. Maintaining that list is up to the auditors, according to the
> current delegation.

Fully agree, but to start I am more interested in the second point,
given that it is easier to be solved (read below).

> I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was
> easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I
> believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on
> www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how
> important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific
> per-organization sub-page might be warranted.

I would argue against so-much specific pages on www.d.o: why should
Debian itself give information about "other" organizations?  Please note
the double quotes: IMHO this should be done by the Trusted Organizations
themselves on their own pages, given that they are different entities
WRT to Debian, while still being Debian.

Just think about debian.ch, as a clear example:

1) debian.ch is a legally-recognized *association*, with a clear status
   and a board.  OTOH and IIRC (again, please someone correct me if I am
   wrong) Debian does not have any legal status.

2) debian.ch should be self-contained in its resources (at least the
   website and a "community" mailing list), something which probably
   would not be possible if it needs a sub-page on www.d.o.

3) if a Trusted Organization must have a sub-page on www.d.o, why should
   not it use *all* the Debian resources for its work?  Something like
   www.d.o/switzerland/ or switzerland@lists.d.o or #switzerland on
   irc.d.o or etc...

Please always bear in mind that while a sister association is usually
started by Debian Developers, it does not mean that all its members are
DDs.  In the case of debian.ch, we have at least one member who is not
officially involved with the project (i.e. he is not a Debian Developer
nor Maintainer nor he maintains packages in the Debian archive).  As far
as I remember, there is nothing in the debian.ch status that prevents
him to become part of the board.  This is in contrast with how Debian
works, where "key positions" (or call them whatever you want) can be
taken by DDs only.

As a final though, as far as I read constitution $9.3, we are talking
here about assets, which is always an hot discussion, given the easiest
and common connection "volunteer means no money involved".

>> Yes, I understand that debian.ch (and similar organisation, as Debian UK
>> as you suggest) is a Debian sister (have an official status) AND give all
>> proceeds to Debian Project.
>> But, IMHO, for the specific purpose of the merchandise page (i.e. to inform
>> users of existence of Debian merchandise vendors) the more relevant information
>> is the one about the destination of the proceeds (as you have stated in a
>> previous mail user could be more happy to see that proceeds fully or partially
>> goes to Debian).
>
> The second issue is whether or not trusted organizations should be
> blessed as "preferred" merchandise dealers in the merchandise page or
> not.
>
> I've mixed feelings about that. My first answer used to be that
> they should be, for two reasons: a) users do not need to trust an
> "external" entity; b) buying from them users can help more Debian, in
> the sense that all the money will be used for Debian goals (hardware,
> sprints and the like).

It could be seen as too much business-oriented, but I think that no one
will complain if Trusted Organizations are the first choice available,
given that Debian has full power over them (read below).

>> More important, there could be vendors who have not an official status but who
>> give all proceeds to Debian (and the "the vendor is a Debian organisation"
>> would be false and the categorization not exhaustive).
>
> On a second though however, this argument of Francesca is quite
> compelling. A hypothetical shop giving all its income on Debian
> merchandise to Debian fully satisfies point (b) above.
>
> It still does not address point (a) above though and we also risk that
> they only *claim* to give proceeds to Debian.

This, unfortunately, is a risk for Trusted Organizations as well.  Which
actually reduces point (a) to "zero" with the only difference (an
important one, nevertheless) that with Trusted Organizations Debian can
take serious actions, while with other vendors it can not.

> All in all, I believe that *mentioning* in the merchandise page that
> entities like debian.ch are trusted organizations of the Debian project
> won't hurt. It will account for more transparency on who-is-who and will
> also address (a) for users who care about it. The mention can come as a
> note, as a new boolean column and in the future as a link to the www.d.o
> sub-page describing the trusted organization in question.

I would argue against such an over-complication of the merchandise page:
we should keep it as simple as possible, so the information can be found
instantaneously.  At least for what it is intended now, i.e. delegating
the merchandise stuff to someone else.

OTOH, as for previous informal discussion about such an aspect (this
topic is already on my ToDo list, as I clearly stated on the
announcement for the new events/merchandise handling [1]), if we want to
expand the merchandise page to something more complete, then this
aspects would be sorted out by itself.

[1] <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/%3c87tyg2g6ed.fsf%40gismo.pca.it%3e>

> Regarding the sorting of merchandise vendors, it would be nice to sort
> them according to which percentage of merchandise they give back to
> Debian (higher percentage first). That would be a fair criteria, useful
> to Debian finances.

Frankly speaking, this would be surely a mess.  It is already difficult
to maintain the current list, given that apart the status of the vendor
(easily verifiable, just visit the website), there is no way to verify:
first, if they are behaving correctly WRT the customers (shipping on
time the selected goodies) and, second, how much they actually donate
back to Debian.

While I would simply create two categories (Trusted Organizations and
others), Francesca's proposal [2][3][4] seems OK, but I will also add a
special text next to Trusted Organizations (which link to the future
page on www.d.o), something like:

   <vendor debian.ch>
   <type <trustedorganization>>
   <URL "http://debian.ch/merchandise/">
   <their_products <t-shirts>, <stickers>, <umbrellas>>
   <their_proceeds <noncommercial>>

[2] <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=yes&bug=613832#10>
[3] Francesca, you forgot to add the 'patch' tag
[4] but the debian.ch link is without 'www' ;-)

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Added tag(s) patch. Request was from Luca Capello <luca@pca.it> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:45:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:36:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it. (Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:36:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #39 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org>
To: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>
Cc: 613832@bugs.debian.org, Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>, auditor@debian.org, events@debian.org, info@debian.ch
Subject: Re: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:33:24 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:41:58PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> > [ Quoted text reordered ]
> Strange, I found Francesca's reply quite clear and linear/successive,
> especially considering that the two problems we are discussing are yes
> linked, but the solution is independent from one to the other (read
> below for more details).

[ Completely off-topic, but when I re-order quoted text is not because
  the original mail was not linear/successive. Usually it's rather just
  because I need to factorize part of my answer and relate them to part
  of the original mail which are interleaved by other parts to whom I
  want to answer differently. ]

> > I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was
> > easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I
> > believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on
> > www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how
> > important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific
> > per-organization sub-page might be warranted.
> 
> I would argue against so-much specific pages on www.d.o: why should
> Debian itself give information about "other" organizations?  Please note
> the double quotes: IMHO this should be done by the Trusted Organizations
> themselves on their own pages, given that they are different entities
> WRT to Debian, while still being Debian.

That is a good point. Still, a potential reason I (now) see for having
subpages would be that: (1) there is too much information to keep in a
single overview page of trusted organizations and (2) we cannot rely on
a common presentation of such information by relying on external
website. All in all, I think this is completely a call of the -www team,
I'm fine with whatever you people will come up to.

> It could be seen as too much business-oriented, but I think that no one
> will complain if Trusted Organizations are the first choice available,
> given that Debian has full power over them (read below).

I mostly skip further comments on this aspects, as I've already
clarified my take. In short, my bottom line is that I have a slight
preference for listing trusted organizations (which do merchandising as
well) first.

> Frankly speaking, this would be surely a mess.  It is already difficult
> to maintain the current list, given that apart the status of the vendor
> (easily verifiable, just visit the website), there is no way to verify:
> first, if they are behaving correctly WRT the customers (shipping on
> time the selected goodies) and, second, how much they actually donate
> back to Debian.

I fully trust your judgement on this.

Thanks for revamping this,
Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:42:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it. (Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:42:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #44 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
To: Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org>, 613832@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>, auditor@debian.org, events@debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:28:24 +0000
I wanted to comment on this bug:

Regarding trusted organizations and the web site: not all of them sell
merchandise.  The trusted organizations should be listed on
http://www.debian.org/donations  There is bug #634986 already for
which I'll accept ownership.

Regarding the merchandise web page: I believe it's important to
express whether a vendor donates parts of their revenues to Debian.
I think we're all in agreement that this makes sense.

The only disagreement I see is how to sort the organizations:

 - One proposal is to divide the page into two: those organizations
that donate to Debian and those that do not.

 - Another proposal is to have 3 categories: Debian trusted orgs
(which sell merchandise), vendors that donate to Debian, and vendors
that do not.

 - And Zack suggested sorting by % donated to Debian.

Personally, I'd just divide the page into two but I can see the
argument for 3 categories.  I agree with Luca that sorting by
percentage is over-engineered.  I'm also fine with Francesca's
proposal to add notes describing whether they donate (but I'd prefer
those that donate to be listed first.)

In any case, this is just a minor detail and I think it should be
decided by the merchandise folks (i.e. Francesca and Luca).

I think the next steps are:

 - For the merchandise folks to contact those vendors to see if they
   make donations to Debian (and if so how: to SPI, to ffis, etc?)

 - For the accounting people: check if we've received donations from
   the vendors that claim to donate to us.

 - For the merchandise folks to pick one of the proposals above and
   change the web page.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it:
Bug#613832; Package www.debian.org. (Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:36:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>, madamezou@yahoo.it. (Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:36:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #49 received at 613832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>
To: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>, 613832@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org>, Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>, auditor@debian.org, events@debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#613832: Bug#61383Re: www.debian.org: Debian sister association in the merchandise page
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:33:04 +0200
* Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> [2012-03-23 16:28:24 CET]:
>  - And Zack suggested sorting by % donated to Debian.

 It still sounds fishy to claim that debian.ch donates 100% to Debian.
Actually, debian.ch is not a vendor but a reseller of goods from others,
and those organizations don't donate their profit to the Debian project
to the best of my knowledge?  It isn't even documented *which* those
organizations are, and from what I understood they might be different
ones for different stuff?

 One could easily create an umbrella organization (pun not intended)
around a for-profit organization that let's say adds 10 cents onto the
prize of the stuff and then come and claim that they are given all their
profit to Debian.

 To me, this sounds highly fishy, and actually claiming that "it *is* a
special case, no matter what other people say" isn't really buying
any trust into what that person says neither, rather the contrary.
debian.ch itself is a non-profit indeed, but there are (unknown) parties
in the background that make their profit on that base and I can't find
any documentation on whether debian.ch gets special discount with those
vendors or how those vendors are related to Debian, if at all.

> Personally, I'd just divide the page into two but I can see the
> argument for 3 categories.  I agree with Luca that sorting by
> percentage is over-engineered.  I'm also fine with Francesca's
> proposal to add notes describing whether they donate (but I'd prefer
> those that donate to be listed first.)

 This would be highly misleading IMNSHO, for the above mentioned reasons.

 Enjoy,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |




Removed tag(s) patch. Request was from David Prévot <taffit@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 07 Jul 2013 00:36:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sun Apr 20 21:11:12 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.