[Dev] Q1: Do you have a consensus on the budget for the Build Server?

Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic tct at ceata.org
Fri Apr 14 20:40:43 GMT 2017

On 14.04.2017 23:33, Josh Branning wrote:
> On 14/04/17 21:25, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
>> On 14.04.2017 23:17, Josh Branning wrote:
>>>>> Really, it's up to GC4J to choose to what entity the build server will
>>>>> be donated to, if it is to be donated.
>>>> He meant it for Parabola and asked for partial funding from the
>>>> Parabola
>>>> fund, without getting the approval from the community for the spending.
>>>> Are you really missing the point here?
>>> He did, but then he went and paid for it himself instead: Very generous
>>> of him don't you think, regardless of who he donates it to?
>> I'm sorry, I'm not interested in who plays hero around here after
>> forcing our hands by breaking the rules. I'm only interested in
>> completing my pro-bono service for the Parabola project until June 5th.
>> And I've been accused of a lot of things by people who don't care about
>> the rules on which this project has organized itself.
>> Do you honestly believe it's scalable for Parabola to have tyrants who
>> play heroes when things go south?
> I don't doubt that you did what was required of you, and did it well.
> There wasn't a public consensus on the cost of the build server at the
> time, and you denied the funds. AFAIK that is what was expected of you
> and ceata.

I have never denied funds. Not this time, not ever. Nor fauno. We both
have tried in a proactive manner to help any initiative we have been
presented. Usually fauno analyzes the budget and proposes less expensive
options, then asks them to submit the detailed budget to the community
on the public mailing list for consensus. And I help with the invoicing
and payment, once fauno is able to give me the okay from the community.

This is how things have always worked and it's the agreed way.


More information about the Dev mailing list