Colour me na ve, but I disagree that Debian is
facing a crisis caused by
dunc-tank.org.
First of all, stuff like this has been going on for years, and I've been
personally involved in cases where money was given to developers to work on
specific aspects of Debian, though it's always been up to the receiver whether
to announce it or not. I hope this does not come as a surprise to you.
Second, there are two issues: funding developers, and our DPL engaged in the
process in a way that's not obviously independent from Debian to everyone.
I think the heated debate around the latter is a mere function of the
emotional issues related to the former, so I'll only concentrate on the
funding aspect.
When people like Joey
loudly protest about where the fun has
gone, I start to wonder (again) about motivation.
Everyone of us who contributes to Debian does so because of some kind of
motivation, whatever it may be. In my case, that motivation is technical
excellence: Debian is in a position to avoid hacks and do things right, and
it's a joy to be part of a community that seems to think alike, that likes to
be perfectionist, pedantic, clean, academic, advanced, you name it. I am also
mighty proud of Debian, of what we've achieved, of what we are. Lastly, Debian
powers every single computer I administer (and the number would be far lower
if it wasn't for Debian), and our operating system is how I earn my living.
To me, the issue of funding developers is tangential to the development of
Debian. Why should it matter that s/he gets paid by the project and I don't?
I'm still doing the same work as before, and I am still doing it for the same
reasons. Note that we're talking about well-defined, limited use of funds, not
employment contracts.
When people say that "money corrupts", I think they're taking the easy way
out. Money doesn't corrupt, people corrupt in the presence of money. I'll go
out on a limb and claim that a person affected by an allergy will probably
rather cure the allergy than to avoid the things to which s/he's allergic. Go
figure.
Even though I've never really cared much for stable releases, I can understand
many of our users when they ask us to get along and release "etch", and
I really doubt we can do it
in time just chugging along like we've been
doing it in the past. Of course, Debian is all about "releasing when it's
ready", and we don't know yet whether paid release managers are going to
enable us to release on time
and when it's ready, but isn't it worth a try?
I was also opposed to the idea of paying our release managers when it first
came up. However, I've managed to change perspective and am now supportive of
it: we are not hiring them, they will not be Debian employees; we are raising
funds for them to be able to dedicate their full time to the final, tiresome
stretch just before a release, without existential worries. We are helping
them to move our project along. Especially since our release team has been one
of the more open teams in Debian, being quick to respond to questions and
training others in the Art of Releasing Debian, I feel rather good about this
particular, well-defined and limited use of our funds.
All other things aside, here are my top three reasons why (I think) we really
want to release "etch" on 4 December 2006, in increasing order:
- we can be even more proud of our project than before because we've bashed
one of the main, negative reputations of our project.
- we'll have a first instance of proof that a huge and chaotic project like
Debian can meet a deadline. I think this alone would be a major
achievement.
- Lars will have to tattoo his arm with our release names.
If it weren't for the last one... :)
NP: Kammerflimmer Kollektief / Cicadidae
