Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #9186 > unrolled thread

Debian contributor Register of Interests

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Debian contributor Register of Interests Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-05-09 11:00 +0200
    Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-09 14:10 +0200
      Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz@debian.org> - 2017-05-09 17:10 +0200
      Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-05-10 02:10 +0200
        Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> - 2017-05-10 09:50 +0200
          Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-05-10 18:00 +0200
            Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2017-05-10 18:50 +0200
            Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-05-10 21:30 +0200
              Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-05-11 02:40 +0200
        Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests "Dr. Bas Wijnen" <wijnen@debian.org> - 2017-05-10 12:50 +0200
          Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2017-05-10 21:50 +0200
            Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2017-05-11 19:10 +0200
              Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2017-05-11 21:40 +0200
                Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2017-05-11 22:20 +0200
                  Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2017-05-12 01:20 +0200
                  Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-05-12 12:10 +0200
                Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2017-05-13 02:00 +0200
      Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-05-10 17:30 +0200
        Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 14:10 +0200
          Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-05-11 14:50 +0200
    Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200
      Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 15:20 +0200
      Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2017-05-14 08:10 +0200
        Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2017-05-14 10:40 +0200
        Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2017-05-15 09:00 +0200
        Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-15 19:20 +0200
          Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2017-05-15 22:00 +0200
            Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-16 14:00 +0200
    Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2017-05-16 05:10 +0200
      Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-16 14:10 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#9186 — Debian contributor Register of Interests

Hi all,

>From time to time (usually during flamewars) the issue of potential conflicts
of interests sometimes comes up in various places in our around our community.

I wish to first state that I have never felt that any Debian contributor that
I know has ever acted against the best interests of the project. I have no
personal concerns about conflicts of interest with any of my Debian colleagues.

However in the interests of transparency I feel that a voluntary, opt-in
"Register of Interests" is a good idea for the project. I feel that such a list
(populated) would demonstrate the transparency and openness that are part of
our project's values.

To that end I sat down just now to create it. Unfortunately wiki.d.o appears
to have died whilst I was doing so. Here's the wiki text that I will be
submitting at my next opportunity:

> This is a voluntary, opt-in register of Debian contributor's "Interests"
> (such as: employer).
>
> On occasion the issue of a conflict of interest is raised within the project,
> especially around topics with many differing or passionate views. The
> intention of this list is for those who agree to clearly indicate any
> potential "Interest" that they may have, for transparency.
>
> The following people have added themselves to this list. No-one should assume
> that the presence or absence of a person from this list implies any conflict
> of interest or misconduct within Debian.
>
> || '''User''' || '''Interest''' || '''From''' || '''Until''' ||
> || JonDowland || Red Hat || 2015 || - ||



-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9187

Jonathan Dowland  <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> However in the interests of transparency I feel that a voluntary,
> opt-in "Register of Interests" is a good idea for the project. I feel
> that such a list (populated) would demonstrate the transparency and
> openness that are part of our project's values.

I think this is a good idea.

>> This is a voluntary, opt-in register of Debian contributor's "Interests"
>> (such as: employer).

It would be a good idea to make an annex, giving a list of kinds of
"interest" that do not need to be mentioned; and ones that should be
mentioned.

Things that are _not_ interests worthy of disclosure:

  * Holding positions of responsibility within the Debian project,
    or a Debian Trusted Organisation

  * Involvement with political parties (even ones focusing on
    technology or information rights)

  * Using Debian or one of its derivatives, on one's personal
    systems

  * Holding positions of responsibility in Free Software projects,
    other than positions of financial responsibility for projects with
    assets or annual income of more than Eur1,000.

  * Mere membership of charities, pressure groups, industry
    associations, etc.

Things that _are_ interests worthy of disclosure:

  * Being paid to work on Debian

  * Being paid to work on hardware that Debian runs on or might run on

  * Being in a position of influence or authority regarding technology
    purchasing decisions.  Exceptions: your own personal purchasing
    and that of your household and your friends; Debian and Debian's
    TOs.; spends of less than Eur1,000 per year.

  * Holding a formal position of influence or authority in charities,
    pressure groups or industry associations which relate to software
    or computing hardware, information rights, or state-granted
    information monopolies ("intellectual property").

I would like to settle the boundaries before we start populating the
list.

>> || '''User''' || '''Interest''' || '''From''' || '''Until''' ||
>> || JonDowland || Red Hat || 2015 || - ||

The list should have a date at which the user's entry was last
updated and signed off by them as complete.

Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9188

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:09:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan Dowland  <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> > However in the interests of transparency I feel that a voluntary,
> > opt-in "Register of Interests" is a good idea for the project. I feel
> > that such a list (populated) would demonstrate the transparency and
> > openness that are part of our project's values.
> 
> I think this is a good idea.

AOL

> >> This is a voluntary, opt-in register of Debian contributor's "Interests"
> >> (such as: employer).
> 
> It would be a good idea to make an annex, giving a list of kinds of
> "interest" that do not need to be mentioned; and ones that should be
> mentioned.
> 
> Things that are _not_ interests worthy of disclosure:
> 
>   * Holding positions of responsibility within the Debian project,
>     or a Debian Trusted Organisation

Arguably, holding a position of responsibility within the Debian project or a
Debian Trusted Organization is what might trigger the completion of a CoI form.

>   * Involvement with political parties (even ones focusing on
>     technology or information rights)
> 
>   * Using Debian or one of its derivatives, on one's personal
>     systems
> 
>   * Holding positions of responsibility in Free Software projects,
>     other than positions of financial responsibility for projects with
>     assets or annual income of more than Eur1,000.
> 
>   * Mere membership of charities, pressure groups, industry
>     associations, etc.
> 
> Things that _are_ interests worthy of disclosure:
> 
>   * Being paid to work on Debian
> 
>   * Being paid to work on hardware that Debian runs on or might run on
> 
>   * Being in a position of influence or authority regarding technology
>     purchasing decisions.  Exceptions: your own personal purchasing
>     and that of your household and your friends; Debian and Debian's
>     TOs.; spends of less than Eur1,000 per year.
> 
>   * Holding a formal position of influence or authority in charities,
>     pressure groups or industry associations which relate to software
>     or computing hardware, information rights, or state-granted
>     information monopolies ("intellectual property").
> 
> I would like to settle the boundaries before we start populating the
> list.

Fully agree.

> >> || '''User''' || '''Interest''' || '''From''' || '''Until''' ||
> >> || JonDowland || Red Hat || 2015 || - ||
> 
> The list should have a date at which the user's entry was last
> updated and signed off by them as complete.

Just as delegations are meant to be refreshed annually, I wonder whether CoIs
should be refreshed annually.

Also, perhaps the CoI 'form' should be an email template that submitters
complete and mail somewhere (GPG-signed). This 'somewhere' could be presented
in a list on some webpage or other. I'm not solutioning, here. I'm questioning
whether we want the non-repudiation that a GPG-signed email provides (or
similar mechanism).

Thanks,

Luca

-- 
Luca Filipozzi
http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9190

On May 9, 2017 8:09:28 AM EDT, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Jonathan Dowland  <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
>> However in the interests of transparency I feel that a voluntary,
>> opt-in "Register of Interests" is a good idea for the project. I feel
>> that such a list (populated) would demonstrate the transparency and
>> openness that are part of our project's values.
>
>I think this is a good idea.

I think it's a horrible idea.  One of the major draws of Debian is that we are all here for our own reasons.  I don't judge your motivations and you don't judge nine.

>>> This is a voluntary, opt-in register of Debian contributor's
>"Interests"
>>> (such as: employer).
>
>It would be a good idea to make an annex, giving a list of kinds of
>"interest" that do not need to be mentioned; and ones that should be
>mentioned.
>
>Things that are _not_ interests worthy of disclosure:
>
>  * Holding positions of responsibility within the Debian project,
>    or a Debian Trusted Organisation
>
>  * Involvement with political parties (even ones focusing on
>    technology or information rights)
>
>  * Using Debian or one of its derivatives, on one's personal
>    systems
>
>  * Holding positions of responsibility in Free Software projects,
>    other than positions of financial responsibility for projects with
>    assets or annual income of more than Eur1,000.
>
>  * Mere membership of charities, pressure groups, industry
>    associations, etc.
>
>Things that _are_ interests worthy of disclosure:
>
>  * Being paid to work on Debian
>
>  * Being paid to work on hardware that Debian runs on or might run on
>
>  * Being in a position of influence or authority regarding technology
>    purchasing decisions.  Exceptions: your own personal purchasing
>    and that of your household and your friends; Debian and Debian's
>    TOs.; spends of less than Eur1,000 per year.
>
>  * Holding a formal position of influence or authority in charities,
>    pressure groups or industry associations which relate to software
>    or computing hardware, information rights, or state-granted
>    information monopolies ("intellectual property").
>
>I would like to settle the boundaries before we start populating the
>list.
>
>>> || '''User''' || '''Interest''' || '''From''' || '''Until''' ||
>>> || JonDowland || Red Hat || 2015 || - ||
>
>The list should have a date at which the user's entry was last
>updated and signed off by them as complete.
>
>Ian.

If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with Debian.  These are frankly none of anyone's business.  

I've packaged software because a project I was being paid to work on needed it and I was able to convince them it made sense to put it in the Debian archive.

The client is private and will remain so.  All rules like the above will accomplish is me spending time on working on things for such clients in private rather than in the Debian archive.

If there were a case where I had an actual conflict of interest (e.g. recommending Debian spend funds with an organization that I had a financial interest in), that should be disclosed.  That's oddly missing from the list.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9191

On 05/10/2017 01:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with Debian.  These are frankly none of anyone's business.  
> 
Sounds like you missed the "voluntary, opt-in" part?

Cheers,
Julien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9194

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 09:43:31 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 01:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with
> > Debian.  These are frankly none of anyone's business.
> Sounds like you missed the "voluntary, opt-in" part?

These things always start that way.

Participation in Debian is voluntary, so saying information disclosure is 
voluntary doesn't really mean anything.

I object to the existence of such a registry because just because it's 
'voluntary' now, doesn't mean it won't be effectively mandatory due to either 
new project rules or social pressures later.

The best way to make sure you don't slip down the slippery slope is stay 
somewhere flat.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9195

On Wed, 10 May 2017, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 09:43:31 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On 05/10/2017 01:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with
> > > Debian.  These are frankly none of anyone's business.
> > Sounds like you missed the "voluntary, opt-in" part?
> 
> These things always start that way.
> 
> Participation in Debian is voluntary, so saying information disclosure is 
> voluntary doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> I object to the existence of such a registry because just because it's 
> 'voluntary' now, doesn't mean it won't be effectively mandatory due to either 
> new project rules or social pressures later.
> 
> The best way to make sure you don't slip down the slippery slope is stay 
> somewhere flat.

Agreed.

IMO, it would make far more sense to only _consider_ the possibility of
requesting preemtive declaration of every possible conflict of interest
in some *very* specific situations (and have a very narrow list of such
important situations).

The only one that comes to *my* mind right now is the Project Leader and
candidates to the position.

I do expect people to declare _relevant_ conflicts of interest when
appropriate, for example a TC member when writing his position for a TC
*ruling* when there is a possibility of a conflict of interest related
to that that specific ruling.

A DD or DM doing typical packaging and bug-triaging work should not have
to do that very often at all.

Note that to explicitly declare relevant conflicts of interest is
actually a requirement of the Code of Conduct (and/or Code of Ethics) of
the IEEE [1], the ISOC [2], and many other professions and professional
organizations.  A great deal of the DDs are already under such codes and
abide by them, anyway.

And none of that requires (or even makes it a good idea, IMO) to have a
"register of possible conflicts of interest", optional or not.  Let's
not go there, or soon we will have misguided pressure to make it less
optional.


[1] https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
    7.8.2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever
    possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do
    exist;

[2] https://www.internetsociety.org/get-involved/join-community/individuals/code-conduct
    (unnumbered) In the case of financial or material conflict between
    personal and professional interests, or between two professional
    interests, declare this conflict to all interested parties and if
    appropriate in public.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9196

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Participation in Debian is voluntary, so saying information disclosure is 
> voluntary doesn't really mean anything.

Evidently it does mean something, since here we are discussing it.

> I object to the existence of such a registry because just because it's 
> 'voluntary' now, doesn't mean it won't be effectively mandatory due to either 
> new project rules or social pressures later.

If you object to mandatory impositions, why are you advocating to mandate
preventing people such as I from declaring interest, if we so wish?

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9198

On May 10, 2017 3:20:49 PM EDT, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
>On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Participation in Debian is voluntary, so saying information
>disclosure is 
>> voluntary doesn't really mean anything.
>
>Evidently it does mean something, since here we are discussing it.
>
>> I object to the existence of such a registry because just because
>it's 
>> 'voluntary' now, doesn't mean it won't be effectively mandatory due
>to either 
>> new project rules or social pressures later.
>
>If you object to mandatory impositions, why are you advocating to
>mandate
>preventing people such as I from declaring interest, if we so wish?

I have no objection to what individuals do or don't do regarding such disclosures.  Declare all you want.

The project creating a centralized information repository is an entirely different thing.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9192

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:51:23PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On May 9, 2017 8:09:28 AM EDT, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >Jonathan Dowland  <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> >> However in the interests of transparency I feel that a voluntary,
> >> opt-in "Register of Interests" is a good idea for the project. I feel
> >> that such a list (populated) would demonstrate the transparency and
> >> openness that are part of our project's values.
> >
> >I think this is a good idea.
> 
> I think it's a horrible idea.  One of the major draws of Debian is that we
> are all here for our own reasons.  I don't judge your motivations and you
> don't judge nine.

It's voluntary, so you decide what you want to share.  If you don't want to
share anything, that's fine.

> If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with
> Debian.  These are frankly none of anyone's business.  

Nobody is suggesting that it would be a requirement.  But I disagree that we're
not allowed to know your motivations.  The NM process spends considerable time
to check that applicants agree with the project's philosophy.  If they do, we
can conclude that this will motivate them to work on Debian.  While also having
other motives is perfectly fine, we require people to have at least those
motives before we let them join the project.

> I've packaged software because a project I was being paid to work on needed
> it and I was able to convince them it made sense to put it in the Debian
> archive.

That's great, and as far as I'm concerned, just disclosing that you have been
paid for certain packages would be nice (but again, not doing it is also fine).
Whether or not it's relevant to mention who's paying is up to you.  I can
imagine that some companies would like to be mentioned, because they can use
that to show they are favorable to free software.  But if they don't wan't to
be mentioned, then don't mention them.

> If there were a case where I had an actual conflict of interest (e.g.
> recommending Debian spend funds with an organization that I had a financial
> interest in), that should be disclosed.  That's oddly missing from the list.

That's a good point, and while I agree it should be on the list, I don't think
it will have the effect you expect: this list is voluntary and therefore
incomplete.  People who intentionally misbehave aren't going to declare their
conflict of interest.  They wouldn't do that if they had to, either.

Finally, I'm not sure how useful this list would be, but I don't see a problem
in setting it up.  If someone makes good use of it, great.  If not, nothing is
lost.

Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJZEu4bAAoJEJzRfVgHwHE6bZAP/jm7P7v9kEazuuiQaUKnpMFc
yLW0Es6IalXmQVNJ/AHe4rwDMuC28CppECEejJVt4SiHkUclYMt++QzUWHLmNrCf
WraVuUGh27SMpnlacC0AxyDLXTtTGHHeA/0dwS/C4UHynRwTyVgIjuwwapwbofGi
IJqcUQlnAiVO7mzCLSZUTyEwxtY6kRjBx8QJ/0vd8lZ9+uh4nPtmq4+m3P0kziTb
A6vrTnJwUjLWbPhBsEbVtnTDcCK+fNcnNMjbXJYWIo8a13pJvZu6krtXGgoWLxmE
zImwySagYZC1XIxis1AV6exLYWCmHdJYvbvaBFk7Y2UielPntOV3ps+AflZmAoXX
Cy2+gAJAR8X5bzEqluHwvqA5V2YSMeDv6BKYBtUdoq3BSc7NcmfdTGXMCIkwrGPC
ylvlhMck015f/TW6BeqZOVeyV02/0zZRPLAZUAbB2dhV1c8CyctVnRCrZcPPQx1s
5F9eqlHqFQgLoVL/grLFYUYWnGbixQ4++Vy79ENV1GngvA7h9XJ5wNnI3owUgBYA
BuEJSljBj6YudqIrzO4QPwuMlsv2BaiI2c7U9WcvmbJnfbS2iMwHcfhPRbuI+DF4
xqb7cuvulHUZxrc2HCqktdg7GSfqFTaCPVDYZAvwakvvXThA9lUFYdjHDo/HaQX8
9Bo8P6pq3YEs6vqtABvC
=Fmz0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9197

"Dr. Bas Wijnen" <wijnen@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:51:23PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>> I think it's a horrible idea.  One of the major draws of Debian is that
>> we are all here for our own reasons.  I don't judge your motivations
>> and you don't judge nine.

> It's voluntary, so you decide what you want to share.  If you don't want to
> share anything, that's fine.

How is this meaningful if it's strictly voluntary and no conclusions
should ever be drawn from it?

I'm personally reasonably comfortable with declaring conflicts, but then
mine are pretty simple and pose no complex ethical concerns.  I understand
Scott's concern: I see no way in which this would stay strictly voluntary
and meaningless if it were widely used.  One can say anything one likes on
the page about not drawing conclusions from the data, but if no one is
supposed to draw any conclusions, why are we collecting the data?

In practice, if lots of people fill this out, people *will* draw
conclusions about people who are missing, will exert social pressure for
people to fill this out in various situations, and will draw conclusions
from the data that's disclosed.  This is just human nature, and is only
logical.

If we don't want that to happen, we shouldn't collect the data in the
first place.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9202

On May 10 2017, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> "Dr. Bas Wijnen" <wijnen@debian.org> writes:
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:51:23PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>> I think it's a horrible idea.  One of the major draws of Debian is that
>>> we are all here for our own reasons.  I don't judge your motivations
>>> and you don't judge nine.
>
>> It's voluntary, so you decide what you want to share.  If you don't want to
>> share anything, that's fine.
>
> How is this meaningful if it's strictly voluntary

You can still use it to infer existence of COI, just not their absence.


> and no conclusions
> should ever be drawn from it?

I don't think anyone has said that.

Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9203

Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:
> On May 10 2017, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:

>> and no conclusions should ever be drawn from it?

> I don't think anyone has said that.

Quoting from the originally proposed wiki page:

| The following people have added themselves to this list. No-one should
| assume that the presence or absence of a person from this list implies
| any conflict of interest or misconduct within Debian.

I'm agnostic on the merits of collecting this data -- I can see both
sides.  But I think the above paragraph is unrealistic, and if we want
that paragraph to be true, we should not gather the data in the first
place.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9204

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:
>> On May 10 2017, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>
>>> and no conclusions should ever be drawn from it?
>
>> I don't think anyone has said that.
>
> Quoting from the originally proposed wiki page:
>
> | The following people have added themselves to this list. No-one should
> | assume that the presence or absence of a person from this list implies
> | any conflict of interest or misconduct within Debian.
>
> I'm agnostic on the merits of collecting this data -- I can see both
> sides.  But I think the above paragraph is unrealistic, and if we want
> that paragraph to be true, we should not gather the data in the first
> place.

Quite.

Also, I suspect that anyone that might be tempted to misbehave as a
result of CoI will not have filled in their entry anyway, which makes me
wonder what useful purpose this could serve beyond a virtue signalling
opportunity.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9205

Le Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:10:39PM +0200, Philip Hands a écrit :
> 
> Also, I suspect that anyone that might be tempted to misbehave as a
> result of CoI will not have filled in their entry anyway, which makes me
> wonder what useful purpose this could serve beyond a virtue signalling
> opportunity.

Hi Philip and everybody,

Preventing misbehaviours is only one side of the issue.  Situations of
conflicts of interests also arise when the public, stakeholders,
colleagues, etc. may have strong feelings that a decision is biased,
which undermines the credibility of persons or decision-making bodies.
In this case, declarations of conflicts of interest leading to step aside
of a decision-making process protect people and institutions from
potentially harmful controversies.

This said, since the situations of conflict of interest arise in
specific contexts, I wonder if a broad list like the one of the wiki is
going to be meaningful, although it is a good exercise for people to
think about possible situations they may encounter in the future.  On
the other hand, I would welcome a more systematic declaration of
conflict of interests when some decisions with far-reaching consequences
on the project are being taken.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9207

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:10:39PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Also, I suspect that anyone that might be tempted to misbehave as a
> result of CoI will not have filled in their entry anyway, which makes me
> wonder what useful purpose this could serve beyond a virtue signalling
> opportunity.

I usually see "virtue signalling" used pejoratively but that accurately
describes my motivations, at least. The intention is simply transparency,
and some of the (limited) feedback I've seen from the wider Debian community
suggests that this has been well received in some quarters. Having said that,
I appreciate the robust discussion in this thread and there's definitely more
refinement to do.


-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9209

On May 11 2017, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:
>> On May 10 2017, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>
>>> and no conclusions should ever be drawn from it?
>
>> I don't think anyone has said that.
>
> Quoting from the originally proposed wiki page:
>
> | The following people have added themselves to this list. No-one should
> | assume that the presence or absence of a person from this list implies
> | any conflict of interest or misconduct within Debian.

I read that to mean that just because someone is listed on this page he
doesn't necessarily have a conflict of interest. But if you have a
specific issue in mind that you'd like to get resolved, you are welcome
to use the page to figure out who may have a conflict of interest and
take that into account.


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9193

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:09:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this is a good idea.

Thanks!

> It would be a good idea to make an annex, giving a list of kinds of
> "interest" that do not need to be mentioned; and ones that should be
> mentioned.

That sounds fine to me.

> Things that _are_ interests worthy of disclosure:

I'm not sure how to word it but I felt that it was appropriate to disclose that
I work for Red Hat (Even though I do not work on RHEL or Fedora), since Red Hat
produces something "similar" to Debian, or more specifically a third party
could hypothetically allude that it was in Red Hat's interests for Debian to
make a particular technical decision. (I didn't see this rationale on your list)

> I would like to settle the boundaries before we start populating the
> list.

I respect that, but I hope that those who are happy to add themselves to the
list as it stands are not dissuaded from doing so (in my view, I'd happily see
the shape of the list evolve and adapt my entry to fit as necessary).

> The list should have a date at which the user's entry was last
> updated and signed off by them as complete.

The former can be inferred from the wiki page history.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9200

Jonathan Dowland writes ("Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests"):
> I'm not sure how to word it but I felt that it was appropriate to
> disclose that I work for Red Hat (Even though I do not work on RHEL
> or Fedora), since Red Hat produces something "similar" to Debian, or
> more specifically a third party could hypothetically allude that it
> was in Red Hat's interests for Debian to make a particular technical
> decision. (I didn't see this rationale on your list)

Yes.

I guess I missed out:

  * Being paid to work on free software more generally

> > I would like to settle the boundaries before we start populating the
> > list.
> 
> I respect that, but I hope that those who are happy to add
> themselves to the list as it stands are not dissuaded from doing so
> (in my view, I'd happily see the shape of the list evolve and adapt
> my entry to fit as necessary).

Right.

TBH I now think this may be too much work.  I guess I will just write
my own entry and we can see how it evolves.

> > The list should have a date at which the user's entry was last
> > updated and signed off by them as complete.
> 
> The former can be inferred from the wiki page history.

Well, it's a bit awkward.  And it just shows you the last edit, not
the last time the user themselves thought it was up to date.

Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9201

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:05:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Jonathan Dowland writes ("Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests"):
>> 
>> I respect that, but I hope that those who are happy to add
>> themselves to the list as it stands are not dissuaded from doing so
>> (in my view, I'd happily see the shape of the list evolve and adapt
>> my entry to fit as necessary).
>
>Right.
>
>TBH I now think this may be too much work.  I guess I will just write
>my own entry and we can see how it evolves.

I've just added my details, and added an extra column for "Notes",
e.g. how the Interest might intersect with Debian.

>> > The list should have a date at which the user's entry was last
>> > updated and signed off by them as complete.
>> 
>> The former can be inferred from the wiki page history.
>
>Well, it's a bit awkward.  And it just shows you the last edit, not
>the last time the user themselves thought it was up to date.

We can check for the last edit by the person in question, which should
cover that I hope!

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"I used to be the first kid on the block wanting a cranial implant,
 now I want to be the first with a cranial firewall. " -- Charlie Stross

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web