Re: Resolution 1999-08-03.nl: Guidelines for Equipment and Service Donations

Aah, yes, that was it: since this is donated equipment, technically we can
do with it what we want (this is why a 'donation' is defined in teh second
paragraph!). Ean was adamant about this point however: If you use a
donation for something other than its intended purpose, you risk upsetting
the donor, hence as a courtesy we should inform them of what we are going to
do with it. This off course is easier to apply for equipment than for
services.

The issue with services is the following is more difficult, as they can not
be 'given' as easily.

Maybe:
If SPI (or the project that the service is donated to, if applicable)
wishes to change the usage of the service, or use the service in a manner
contrary to that initially specified, they must obtain permission from the
service donor in advance.

Short, sweet, and simple.

Joey- does that work for you? IMO the timeframe is meaningless if worded
like this, so it's easier to cut it out.

NIls.

In message <Pine(dot)LNX(dot)4(dot)10(dot)9908050913040(dot)5051-100000(at)opensource(dot)captech(dot)com>,
Ch
ristoph Lameter writes:
>It is best if the donor has to give complete control over what happens to
>the equipment. At least if ownership the equipment is transferred to SPI.
>Loaners could be different.
>
>SPI can of course use it for something different if this is made clear
>beforehand as a condition of donating the service.
>
>On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
>> Err, SPI cannot use the service for something different than said before,
>> not even if we inform the donor 15 days in advance.
>>
>> I cannot approve this.
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>

On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 06:36:54PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> Aah, yes, that was it: since this is donated equipment, technically we can
> do with it what we want (this is why a 'donation' is defined in teh second
> paragraph!). Ean was adamant about this point however: If you use a
> donation for something other than its intended purpose, you risk upsetting
> the donor, hence as a courtesy we should inform them of what we are going to
> do with it. This off course is easier to apply for equipment than for
> services.

My point was this, if a donor gives SPI a piece of equipment and says that
they have no preference what we do with it then great, no worries. But, lets
say that VA donates 10 Quad Xeons to us and says, "we want you to turn these
systems into a Beowulf test bed", we shouldn't be able to accept those systems
and then offer a 15 day notice that we have instead decided to give them to
members of the Debian Cabal (which, of course, does not exist).

The idea is, if the donor has a preference they should be able to specify
the terms of their donation. If we do not like the terms then we should turn
down the donation. But I think that we would miss out on some large donations
if we don't offer some sort of gaurantee of use.

E

--
___________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler An oderless programmer work-a-like
Novare International Inc. Silent and motionless
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:

> The idea is, if the donor has a preference they should be able to specify
> the terms of their donation. If we do not like the terms then we should turn
> down the donation. But I think that we would miss out on some large donations
> if we don't offer some sort of gaurantee of use.

Donations are troublesome if we need to keep track of them and the
conditions of use and we do not have the resources for such a buerocracy.

And its not really ours if there are still strings attached.

I disagree. I don't think that it would be unusual or, for that matter, unfair
for a donor to place some constraints on their donation. We must remember that
many times these donations will not be of a purely altruistic nature. I can
envision many situations where a donor may be giving something to us because
they hope that we can do something for them. I think that this may be
especially true in the case of large donations.

I think that if we do not address this situation initially we will end up
addressing it on a case by case basis. Maybe that is better. It probably
wouldn't hurt to spell some groud rules out in advance. As to the overhead
that tracking would impose, we are still free to turn down donations based
on the complexity of the conditions. I think that tracking donations is
going to be an issue, however, with or without this specific detail.

On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:31:13PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Donations are troublesome if we need to keep track of them and the
> conditions of use and we do not have the resources for such a buerocracy.
>
> And its not really ours if there are still strings attached.

In that sense then, nothing is ours. The time of our volenteers has all
sorts of strings attached. We should afford any other donor the same respect
that we afford our developers.

--
__________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux
Novare International Inc. A company running Linux
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.

I would expect them at least to pretent that this is an altruistic act and
agree to a no strings donation. We cannot allow a foreign agenda to
control the organization.

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:

> I disagree. I don't think that it would be unusual or, for that matter, unfair
> for a donor to place some constraints on their donation. We must remember that
> many times these donations will not be of a purely altruistic nature. I can
> envision many situations where a donor may be giving something to us because
> they hope that we can do something for them. I think that this may be
> especially true in the case of large donations.

On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:50:17PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I would expect them at least to pretent that this is an altruistic act and
> agree to a no strings donation. We cannot allow a foreign agenda to
> control the organization.
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
>
> > I disagree. I don't think that it would be unusual or, for that matter, unfair
> > for a donor to place some constraints on their donation. We must remember that
> > many times these donations will not be of a purely altruistic nature. I can
> > envision many situations where a donor may be giving something to us because
> > they hope that we can do something for them. I think that this may be
> > especially true in the case of large donations.
>

In that case.. that means we can't allow /. to donate $10,000 to debian.
It has to go to SPI to be divided by to all the various projects under
SPI's umbrella. That also means all "extra dollars" donated when a CD is
purchased is the same...

That would also mean we turn down any and all donatations that come with
any sort of stipulation...

I would have to say, I'd rather stay open to donations with stipulations.
I don't think we should have a "blanket accept" or "blanket reject" policy,
though.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

This is naturally something else.... this is a designation of the funds
not a string attached.

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:50:17PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > I would expect them at least to pretent that this is an altruistic act and
> > agree to a no strings donation. We cannot allow a foreign agenda to
> > control the organization.
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree. I don't think that it would be unusual or, for that matter, unfair
> > > for a donor to place some constraints on their donation. We must remember that
> > > many times these donations will not be of a purely altruistic nature. I can
> > > envision many situations where a donor may be giving something to us because
> > > they hope that we can do something for them. I think that this may be
> > > especially true in the case of large donations.
> >
>
> In that case.. that means we can't allow /. to donate $10,000 to debian.
> It has to go to SPI to be divided by to all the various projects under
> SPI's umbrella. That also means all "extra dollars" donated when a CD is
> purchased is the same...
>
> That would also mean we turn down any and all donatations that come with
> any sort of stipulation...
>
> I would have to say, I'd rather stay open to donations with stipulations.
> I don't think we should have a "blanket accept" or "blanket reject" policy,
> though.
>
> --
> Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
> =========================================================================
> * http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
> * -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
> * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
> * <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
> * <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *
> =========================================================================
>

Nils Lohner wrote:
> Maybe:
> If SPI (or the project that the service is donated to, if applicable)
> wishes to change the usage of the service, or use the service in a manner
> contrary to that initially specified, they must obtain permission from the
> service donor in advance.
>
> Joey- does that work for you? IMO the timeframe is meaningless if worded
> like this, so it's easier to cut it out.

Yes, that's fine.

Regards,

Joey

--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The idea is, if the donor has a preference they should be able to specify
> > the terms of their donation. If we do not like the terms then we should turn
> > down the donation. But I think that we would miss out on some large donations
> > if we don't offer some sort of gaurantee of use.

Agreed. If the donor wants to limit the donation to certain uses
he needs to be able to do so. We already accept moneytary (sp?)
donations limited to certain projects. We should do the same
with other donations. I agree, that if we don't want to accept
such terms, we need to refuse the donation.

> Donations are troublesome if we need to keep track of them and the

Agreed as well.

> conditions of use and we do not have the resources for such a buerocracy.

Then we need to refuse such donations. However, we have our guidelines
and by-laws etc. that limit donations to certain uses. If the donor
wants to limit the donation even stronger, we need to discuss this
with him and see what happens.

Regards,

Joey

--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 04:47:47PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Maybe:
> > If SPI (or the project that the service is donated to, if applicable)
> > wishes to change the usage of the service, or use the service in a manner
> > contrary to that initially specified, they must obtain permission from the
> > service donor in advance.
> >
> > Joey- does that work for you? IMO the timeframe is meaningless if worded
> > like this, so it's easier to cut it out.
>
> Yes, that's fine.

Being nitpicky, but:

If SPI (or the designated project[s] which have recieved the donation) wish
to change the usage of the service, or use the service in a manner
contrary to that initially specified, they must obtain permission from
the service donor in advance. If the service donor is unwilling to
provide such permission, SPI (or the designated project[s]) may
terminate the use of the service at their discretion.

E

ps. This might come into play if we have made an agreement to use a
particular web hosting service in exchange for advertisements (or some
such) and they begin running ads which we find disagreeable.

--
_______________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler Director of New Products and Technologies
Novare International Inc. The Unstoppable Fist of Digital Action
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.

Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 04:47:47PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Maybe:
> > > If SPI (or the project that the service is donated to, if applicable)
> > > wishes to change the usage of the service, or use the service in a manner
> > > contrary to that initially specified, they must obtain permission from the
> > > service donor in advance.
> > >
> > > Joey- does that work for you? IMO the timeframe is meaningless if worded
> > > like this, so it's easier to cut it out.
> >
> > Yes, that's fine.
>
> Being nitpicky, but:
>
> If SPI (or the designated project[s] which have recieved the donation) wish
> to change the usage of the service, or use the service in a manner
> contrary to that initially specified, they must obtain permission from
> the service donor in advance. If the service donor is unwilling to
> provide such permission, SPI (or the designated project[s]) may
> terminate the use of the service at their discretion.

I'm not sure why you want to add a termination clause since it's
logical (at least to me). If the donor is unwilling to provide
permission to use a service for a different use it will be used
in the old way or abandoned. Logical to me.

Regards,

Joey

--
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
- Linus Torvalds

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

By no means - consider the hardware donations aimed at creating support
for the hardware. They give it to us on the condition that we use it
to develop drivers for it. It may be a foreign agenda, but it may also
be our own internal agenda.

On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:50:17PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I would expect them at least to pretent that this is an altruistic act and
> agree to a no strings donation. We cannot allow a foreign agenda to
> control the organization.
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
>
> > I disagree. I don't think that it would be unusual or, for that matter, unfair
> > for a donor to place some constraints on their donation. We must remember that
> > many times these donations will not be of a purely altruistic nature. I can
> > envision many situations where a donor may be giving something to us because
> > they hope that we can do something for them. I think that this may be
> > especially true in the case of large donations.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>

Dan

/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan(at)debian(dot)org | | dmj+(at)andrew(dot)cmu(dot)edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/

Well, I'm probably being overly paranoid. I was just worried that if we
contract to use a service we may be bound to use that service for the
duration specified and subject to some unknown penalty if we terminate
its use early. The only reason I was getting that specific is that things
are never "understood" in a legal contract, which is why they are so long
and boring.

On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 10:36:19AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I'm not sure why you want to add a termination clause since it's
> logical (at least to me). If the donor is unwilling to provide
> permission to use a service for a different use it will be used
> in the old way or abandoned. Logical to me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joey

--
_______________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler Director of New Products and Technologies
Novare International Inc. The Unstoppable Fist of Digital Action
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

We (who is we?) develop drivers? I think there is an expectation but we
cannot guarantee that we will fulfill that expectation.

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> By no means - consider the hardware donations aimed at creating support
> for the hardware. They give it to us on the condition that we use it
> to develop drivers for it. It may be a foreign agenda, but it may also
> be our own internal agenda.
>
> On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:50:17PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > I would expect them at least to pretent that this is an altruistic act and
> > agree to a no strings donation. We cannot allow a foreign agenda to
> > control the organization.
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree. I don't think that it would be unusual or, for that matter, unfair
> > > for a donor to place some constraints on their donation. We must remember that
> > > many times these donations will not be of a purely altruistic nature. I can
> > > envision many situations where a donor may be giving something to us because
> > > they hope that we can do something for them. I think that this may be
> > > especially true in the case of large donations.

Daniel Jacobowitz <dan(at)debian(dot)org> writes:
> By no means - consider the hardware donations aimed at creating support
> for the hardware. They give it to us on the condition that we use it
> to develop drivers for it. It may be a foreign agenda, but it may also
> be our own internal agenda.

In my experience, it is best to accept such a gift only if the strings
have a clearly stated maximum lifespan. Fulfilling such conditions
forever is too much to ask.
--
__
\/ o\ paul(at)hedonism(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\

To the two questions - no, but a driver project could easily fit under
SPI's umbrella, and no, but the expectation is usually more of trying
than of succeeding.

On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 10:48:04AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> We (who is we?) develop drivers? I think there is an expectation but we
> cannot guarantee that we will fulfill that expectation.
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > By no means - consider the hardware donations aimed at creating support
> > for the hardware. They give it to us on the condition that we use it
> > to develop drivers for it. It may be a foreign agenda, but it may also
> > be our own internal agenda.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:50:17PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > I would expect them at least to pretent that this is an altruistic act and
> > > agree to a no strings donation. We cannot allow a foreign agenda to
> > > control the organization.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > >
> > > > I disagree. I don't think that it would be unusual or, for that matter, unfair
> > > > for a donor to place some constraints on their donation. We must remember that
> > > > many times these donations will not be of a purely altruistic nature. I can
> > > > envision many situations where a donor may be giving something to us because
> > > > they hope that we can do something for them. I think that this may be
> > > > especially true in the case of large donations.
>

Dan

/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan(at)debian(dot)org | | dmj+(at)andrew(dot)cmu(dot)edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/