[Dev] Q1: Do you have a consensus on the budget for the Build Server?
tct at ceata.org
Fri Apr 14 19:43:40 GMT 2017
On 14.04.2017 22:33, Stig Roar wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 07:28:13PM +0000, Luke wrote:
>> On 04/14/2017 06:58 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
>>> On 14.04.2017 21:43, Josh Branning wrote:
>>>>> So, my question is: has the Parabola community been presented and have
>>>>> you discussed options and the detailed budget for the new build server?
>>>>> Have you reached a consensus about this for fauno to tell me what needs
>>>>> to paid for?
>>>> Relevant to this question is a response from Luke, gc4j, 06/04/17 23:47.
>> Josh is correct, that is the current information.
>> Chasis just arrived, still waiting on power supply to arrive in the mail.
>> The e-mail he referenced can be found here:
>>> That response has come with considerable delay, after everything has
>>> become public. I have been asked privately to pay $400 USD on 26/03/17
>>> 12:07. That is, 10 days earlier. I consider this private request to
>>> violate both the Parabola Social Contract and Parabola-Ceata Fiscal
>>> Sponsorship Agreement.
>> I assume you are referring to Emulatorman's e-mail which he sent to
>> fauno and yourself. I was CC'd on it. At the time we only had a
>> motherboard, cpu, and heat sinks. He provided estimated prices on
>> shipping products from Urutek, New Egg, and Amazon to complete the
>> server. (Chasis, ram, power supply)
>> I've since gone ahead and gotten the other parts myself, using my own
>> money, as they were cheaper to acquire locally.
>> Answer to Q1:
>> Budget cost for build server to Ceata and community = $0.00
> i:Exit -:PrevPg <Space>:NextPg v:View Attachm. d:Del r:Reply j:Next ?:Help
>> to paid for?
>> Have you discussed location of the new build server? This is relevant
>> for the shipping/collocation.
>> I'm looking forward to hearing what you all have to say on this matter.
> I really don't get this. Is this really the changes the Social Contract
> is talking about? Has it ever occured to you that Emulatorman wanted to
> buy and even pay for this himself for the benefit of the whole community
> and Parabola? OK, so let's say that I'm in the future want to port some
> games from Lua (or whatever) to C, or even want to do some kernels, and I buy
> myself a server or whatever. Is that really the changes that falls under
> the Social Contract? Shouldn't the community be happy that I have some
> up-to-date devices to maintain Parabola? So what if there were some
> talking about this? What harm does it do to the community that the guy
> doing all the maintaining wishes himself a build server?
> It's like someone has commited a huge crime for talking to eachother
> about how this could come true.
> Well, as far as I know, those guys (g4jc, Emulatorman) with some direct
> donations from others as well made this come true by themselves, so
> technically the build server is now not owned by Parabola nor the community.
> So if Emulatorman want to use this build server for Parabola or not, is
> really up to him. I would guess 'no', after all the shit he and others as
> to put up with, and the resistance they have met from the very beginning
> of this process. The build server could have benifited Parabola, but the
> - SF- 1/927: Stig Roar Re: [Dev] Q1: Do you have a consens -- (87%)
It's never a problem to pay yourself for a machine that you would like
to use for the benefit of the community. But to ask for a partial
funding of the project, you need to get the okay from the community.
Publicly. These are the rules the community has agreed to.
I hope you can understand this.
More information about the Dev