Record the answers to entries 8 and 9 where the work reads them [#7]

decisions/0017-what-the-site-says-about-who-publishes-it.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# 0017. What the site says about who publishes it
+
+Publishing a site under a name of one's own carries a provider identification
+duty in some jurisdictions, and the page that would carry the answer exists and
+states nothing: it was built to hold no words that identify anybody, because
+what goes on it is a personal cost rather than a design question. That is a
+page that can stay open indefinitely, and a duty that is not decided is not
+thereby absent. Entry 8 of #7 is where the question was held, and it was
+answered on 2026-08-24. This record is that answer written where the work that
+reads it can find it, rather than on a tracker.
+
+## What was measured
+
+The served site named nobody and offered no route to anybody at the time the
+question was taken, and the organisation profile carried a donation link, which
+is the kind of detail that decides whether a site is read as private or as
+commercial:
+
+    curl -sS https://flowfin.dev/ | grep -o -i -E 'impressum|imprint|datenschutz|privacy'
+    exit=1
+    gh api repos/Flowfin/.github/contents/profile/README.md --jq '.content' \
+      | base64 -d | grep -c -i 'buymeacoffee'
+    1
+
+Run 2026-08-08, and carried here from the entry that took the question rather
+than re-run, because what it establishes is the state the decision was taken
+against.
+
+The legal notice this repository builds reads its values out of a file, and
+every value in that file is still waiting on the entry:
+
+    jq -r 'to_entries[] | "\(.key)  \(.value.state)  \(.value.waiting)"' data/publisher.json
+    publisher  undecided  entry 8 of issue 7
+    contact  undecided  entry 8 of issue 7
+    postal  undecided  entry 8 of issue 7
+    go run . build | grep legal
+    wrote dist/legal/index.html (3562 bytes, 0 of 3 answered)
+
+Run 2026-09-05 at `2add524`. So the page points a reader at a question that has
+an answer, and the answer is written nowhere the page could point at instead.
+That is what this record is for.
+
+## The decision
+
+Full provider identification, carried by a paid imprint-address service rather
+than a home address, and a rotatable contact alias on the legal page.
+
+The service booking happens outside this repository. Once the address exists,
+the legal page and the privacy statement are ordinary build work: the values
+arrive in the file the page reads, and the lines saying the question is open
+become answers. Professional advice stays sensible and this decision does not
+replace it. What it ends is the state of publishing nothing.
+
+## Why
+
+The duty, read at its strictest, asks for an address at which documents can be
+served, and the only two answers that meet it put an address on a page built to
+be indexed. One of them is a home. A private address published once is
+collected within days and kept by scrapers after any later change, so that
+answer is paid for permanently, by a person, and cannot be withdrawn. The
+service costs money every year and puts a third party in the chain, and in
+return the address is real for service of documents without being anybody's
+home. That is the trade, and it is the only one of the four options that meets
+the strictest reading at a price that can be stopped paying.
+
+The alias is the same reasoning applied to the contact route. A route printed on
+a public page is collected within days, so one that can be rotated without
+changing anything else is worth more here than a memorable one, and the page
+renders it from data so that rotating it is a change to one value rather than an
+edit to prose.
+
+Whether the site reads as private or as commercial is what decides which duty
+applies, and this answer does not wait on that reading. Full identification
+satisfies the stricter of the two, so how the site reads, which the donation
+link and entry 9 bear on, stops being a question the legal page has to settle
+first.
+
+## What the alternatives cost
+
+A full provider identification with a home address. Cost: a private address
+becomes permanently public on a page built to be indexed, and scrapers keep a
+copy after any later change. It is what the strictest reading of the duty asks
+for, and it costs the most in the one currency that cannot be recovered.
+
+A name and a contact route with no postal address. Cost: a reader can reach
+somebody, and a jurisdiction that asks for a summonable address is not
+satisfied. It is what most personal projects do, and it leaves the obligation
+half met.
+
+A name and nothing else. Cost: cheapest, and it leaves both a reader and any
+obligation with nothing.
+
+Publishing nothing, which is the state the page was in. Cost: the page says who
+publishes this site by saying nothing, for as long as nobody decides, and the
+duty is not smaller for being undecided.
+
+## When this is worth revisiting
+
+When the service stops being available or stops being worth its price. The
+answer rests on the address being real for service of documents without being a
+home, so a replacement that carries the address is a new record naming what
+carries it instead.
+
+When professional advice says the identification should carry more or less than
+this. The decision ends the state of publishing nothing and is not a legal
+opinion, so advice that arrives later changes it without contradicting it.
+
+A compromised alias is not a revisit. Rotating it is the data change the answer
+was built for, and this record does not name the alias.
+
+## What this record does not decide
+
+The values. The name, the address and the alias are what the legal page will
+show, they exist once the booking is done, and this record names none of them.
+Until they arrive the page states that the question is open, and what it should
+state in the meantime about an answer that is decided and a value that is not
+yet available is a page question rather than this record's.
+
+Whether the site asks for money, and in what form. That is entry 9 of #7, it
+was answered on the same day, and 0018 carries it. The two touch where the
+donation link bears on how the site reads, and this record already says why
+that reading does not have to be settled first.
+
+Which jurisdiction's duty applies. Nothing in this repository decides that, and
+nothing here is legal advice.

decisions/0018-whether-the-site-asks-for-money-and-in-what-form.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# 0018. Whether the site asks for money, and in what form
+
+A sponsor button already applies to every repository in the organisation, from
+a single file, and a button on a repository page is not a page of this site.
+Whether the site itself carries the same ask is a separate question, and it
+would otherwise have been answered silently in two places: the byte budget
+refuses a request to a domain the project does not own, and the question of who
+publishes the site treats the existing donation link as one of the details that
+decides whether the site reads as private or as commercial. Entry 9 of #7 is
+where the question was held, and it was answered on 2026-08-24. This record is
+that answer written where the work that reads it can find it, rather than on a
+tracker.
+
+## What was measured
+
+The organisation-wide file names two providers, and it applies to every
+repository in the organisation that does not carry a file of its own:
+
+    gh api repos/Flowfin/.github/contents/.github/FUNDING.yml --jq '.content' \
+      | base64 -d | grep -v '^#' | grep . | cut -d: -f1
+    github
+    buy_me_a_coffee
+
+Run 2026-09-05. The keys are pasted and the values are cut, because this record
+is about the form of the ask and not about whose account it reaches. The entry
+read the same file at a different path on 2026-08-08 and found one provider;
+the file has moved and gained one since, which is one reason the link itself is
+not this record's to spell out.
+
+Nothing the build produces carries the ask today:
+
+    go run . build >/dev/null && grep -ril 'sponsor\|coffee\|donat\|funding' dist | wc -l
+    0
+
+Run 2026-09-05 at `2add524`.
+
+The budget row that the embedded form would meet draws its line between a fetch
+and a link, in its own words:
+
+    git grep -h -o 'Refuses: "a produced file fetching[^"]*"' -- internal/invariant/invariant.go
+    Refuses: "a produced file fetching a stylesheet, a font, an image, a script or anything else from a host that is not on the allowlist, while leaving a link a reader clicks alone"
+
+Run 2026-09-05 at `2add524`.
+
+## The decision
+
+A plain text link to the existing funding providers. The embedded button stays
+refused by the byte budget.
+
+## Why
+
+It is honest. The ask exists already, on every repository page in the
+organisation, and a site that hid it while its source carried it would be saying
+two different things to two audiences.
+
+It is tiny in the byte budget. A link is text, and a link is not a fetch, so no
+reader's address reaches a provider before they have chosen to go there. That is
+the line the budget draws and the row above enforces, and a plain link sits on
+the right side of it without asking the budget to move.
+
+The commercial reading a funding link invites is already carried. The question
+of who publishes the site was answered on the same day with full provider
+identification, so a reader or a jurisdiction that takes the site as commercial
+finds the identification that reading asks for, and the link adds no obligation
+the legal page does not already meet.
+
+## What the alternatives cost
+
+Nothing on the site, with the button staying where it is. Cost: the ask reaches
+somebody browsing the source and nobody reading the pages, which is most
+readers.
+
+The provider's own button or badge embedded in a page. Cost: refused by the
+budget rather than merely expensive, because the image and the script come from
+a domain the project does not own and every reader's address reaches that domain
+before they have done anything. Taking this answer means changing the budget
+record and saying so there.
+
+A page of its own explaining what money would be for. Cost: the most honest and
+the most work, and a page that has to stay true as the answer to who publishes
+the site changes.
+
+## When this is worth revisiting
+
+When there is something specific the money would be for. A page of its own is
+the alternative that becomes right on that day, and it arrives as a second
+record rather than a reversal, because a plain link and a page are not
+exclusive.
+
+When the providers change shape rather than membership. A provider that cannot
+be reached by a plain link is not covered by the form decided here. A change in
+which providers are listed is not a revisit: the file that names them has moved
+once and gained one already, and how the link follows it is a build question
+named below.
+
+When the budget record changes what it refuses. The embedded form is refused by
+the budget rather than by this record, so a change there re-opens that
+alternative here.
+
+## What this record does not decide
+
+Which page carries the link. The entry named the legal notice and the landing
+page as the two candidates, and this record chooses neither. That is a build
+question, and the legal notice in particular is waiting on values this
+repository does not hold yet, which 0017 says.
+
+How the link is kept current against the organisation file that names the
+providers, and whether it names one provider or every one. A copy of a file in
+another repository is what this site already compares on a schedule for the
+roster and the tokens, and whether the funding providers join that set is a
+question for whoever lands the link.
+
+What the site says about who publishes it. That is entry 8 of #7, it was
+answered on the same day, and 0017 carries it.