Debian + Dunc-Tank.org = dissent

Last week's announcement of Dunc-Tank.org set off flame wars and controversy on Debian mailing lists including a rash of general resolutions and a post from the Project Secretary on the procedure for proposing and sponsoring General resolutions. It even had Linux-Watching wondering, 'Is Debian is dying?'.

The Dunc-Tank.org is described as "fund-raising experiment" with the initial goal of raising funds to pay Debian release managers Steve Langasek and Andreas Barth to work full time on the Debian Etch release, for a period of one month each. This project is independent of the Debian Project, however the Dunc board is made up of prominent Debian Developers including current Debian Project Leader Anthony Towns and his assistant DPL Steve McIntyre.

Therein comes the controversy. If the DPL is involved, doesn't that make it a Debian Project? Can the DPL remain objective and unbiased while working on Debian and an organization. Should Debian Developers be paid to do work on Debian?

The goal is to release Etch on schedule, which is December 4, 2006. The Debian Project and the Dunc-Tank share that goal. People will argue about how that should be achieved, but there's general agreement on the goal. If independent companies share that goal and want to help out in some fashion their assistance should be appreciated. The DPL should ensure that any help accepted from independent companies does not somehow compromise Debian. If the DPL is also the CEO of the independent company that is offering its assistance, there could be a conflict of interest. In this case Anthony has started an organization that he hopes will be able to help Debian. Dunc-Tank is an experiment which may or may not be effective. If Etch is released on schedule and Dunc-Tank helps with that goal, then every one should be can be happy about achieving that goal. If it fails Dunc-Tank won't have much of a future.

Should Debian Developers, who are all volunteers, ever be paid to work on Debian? In fact many Debian Developers have found gainful employment that allows them to work on Debian as part of their job. Companies who use Debian internally or have based their products on Debian, such as HP, Canonical, Progeny, etc., employ Debian Developers and expect them to work on Debian during company time. For the most part DDs who find such employment are encouraged, applauded, and occasionally envied, but are generally not accused of having a conflict of interest. If the release managers don't have to worry about making a living while devoting their time to the Etch release it just might help Etch go out on time.

In spite of the resolution calling for the recall of Anthony Towns as DPL, it would seem that Anthony has a fair amount of support from the developers. Anthony has offered to step down if that's what people really want, but having him step down at this point won't help Etch release on time and it may ensure that the release is hopelessly delayed.

The recall proposal would require two weeks of discussion followed by another two weeks of voting. If the resolution passed another project leader election would start immediately with nine weeks of nominating, campaigning and voting. Could Etch still be released on time with that going on? Maybe, I think most DDs would rather concentrate on the release. If Dunc-Tank proves an absysmal failure then there will still be time to oust Anthony before his term as DPL is over.

---

to post comments