[kwlug disc.] FLOSS Fund update

[Unsolicited at gto.net]

> web page. Meanwhile a bunch of people who attend meetings don't use the
mailing list 

Fair enough, but that's why I asked for the show of hands at the last
meeting.

>From what I saw, the results were:

- well more than 2/3 of the attendees follow the list.

- perhaps 1/2 follow the web page [which doesn't mean they actually get to
any particular web page, such as a fishbowl nominee list.]

- and well less than 1/2 have an ability to non-anonymously post to the
website.

Aside from being surprised at the results myself, I had to conclude that the
most eyeballs are on the list. And using the list and meetings as a
(complete) basis for any kw-lug decisions seems viable. [As opposed some
combination involving web site eyeballs.]

> 	The advantage of the web site is that we have some easily-searched
record of nominations and descriptions.

I agree, but to my mind that page should be a list of the fishbowl manager
vetted list of nominations, maintained by the managers from nomination
postings received via the list. Not a hodgepodge of individual postings in
various styles and styles of content.


> Andrew? Our job (as far as I understand it) is to collect money and run
the administrative aspects of the fund. Why would there need to be more
people involved 

It was my assumption that the managers would ultimately pick the project and
proceed - as discussed. As you point out, that assumption may or may not be
(still) correct.

I agree something needs to be posted to the list. I guess that would be the
list of nominees. Let's say the managers pick the top 3 nominees. A quick
show of hands at a meeting picks one of them. People arriving may not know
which of the 3 they're contributing to, but they know they will be
contributing to something worthwhile - as determined by their peers. (If
they don't trust their peers as a group, well, we're all in the wrong place.
And, given a non-life threatening donation, something that won't kill them -
and there are mechanisms already in place whereby they can change that by
greater participation in the future.)

If this group vote happens, then never mind my earlier (additional person)
comment. It was my impression that the managers would ultimately make a
unilateral decision as to whom the contributions go to. [A meeting vote not
in the picture in that scenario.] If that were true, picking a random
audience member would allow some non-entrenched outside input. And if that
made an even number, the 2nd would make it even. I mean _absolutely_ no
offence by 'non-entrenched'. I do understand how reality checks are healthy.

> 	If this was settled then I would be happy. Honestly, I would rather
not be bringing up this topic again at all. If somebody else is willing to
facilitate this 

Paul, you continue to astonish me.

You have initiated the idea, haven't let it die due to inertia, taken in
some feedback, and keep coming back in a productive and constructive manner
to see it through to fruition.

I get why you would be happy, I don't blame you. But you have just shown yet
again why you should keep doing what you're doing.

BIG Kudo's to you on all of this.

And thank you so very much for being here.

P.S. I don't mean to be artificial here, but may I request the rest of you
also send a simple 'Thank You' to Paul? In my opinion, he certainly deserves
it.


-----Original Message-----
From: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org [mailto:kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org] On
Behalf Of Paul Nijjar
Sent: December 15, 2006 12:28 PM
To: kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
Subject: RE: [kwlug disc.] FLOSS Fund update

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Unsolicited at gto.net wrote:

> <sigh>
>
> May I point out, at the end of the last meeting the instructions were 
> given to post nominations to the list.

	You may point this out. Then we got conflicting instructions to post
to the web page. Meanwhile a bunch of people who attend meetings don't use
the mailing list or the web page with any consistency. So I remain confused.
	However, I take your point that there were conflicting instructions,
and I apologise for nagging people to follow instructions they already
followed.

	The advantage of the web site is that we have some easily-searched
record of nominations and descriptions.

> > 	So which project do we choose? How?
>
> I thought this was settled. Having said that, I don't remember which it
was.
> It was either (a) show of hands for candidates at the meeting, or (b) 
> the fishbowl manglers autonomously choose which of the nominees they
prefer.

	If this was settled then I would be happy. Honestly, I would rather
not be bringing up this topic again at all. If somebody else is willing to
facilitate this conversation so that we are all on the same page, then I
would encourage that person to go ahead. But right now there is too much
conflicting information. So far I see at least four proposals for how to
nominate projects:

	- nominating during meetings
	- posting to mailing list
	- posting to website
	- choosing a person during the meeting to select the project for
next month

	and at least three proposals for how to choose projects for the
fund:
	- show of hands at meeting
	- selected by Andrew and Adam
	- FIFO order by nomination (as determined by whom?)

	Clearly, there is some confusion as to how this is supposed to work.
	I am not in favour of spending a lot of meeting time going through
the nomination/selection process unless we can do it quickly.

> Your basic initial point was to be contributing to something, 
> _anything_, worthwhile. Your basic point was everyone has good 
> intentions of contributing, but then frequently, innocently, fail to 
> follow through. This was to address that.

	Right. But I don't agree that we should be expected to be
contributing to a something without knowing what that something is. That's a
recipe for corruption. I think that people should have some idea of what
they are contributing to beforehand, so they can make a sober evaluation if
the project in question is something they want to support and to what degree
they want to support it. (Pocket change? $1000 bills?)

	If people want to support projects indiscriminately then that's fine
too. But I think that being aware of what projects we will support (and
advertising it on the announcement list so people who do not attend the
meeting can participate) is a clear advantage.

> P.S. I would like to suggest this addendum ... at the meeting the 
> manglers randomly choose an audience member to join their ranks that
month.

	I don't understand. Who exactly are the manglers right now? Me, Adam
and Andrew? Our job (as far as I understand it) is to collect money and run
the administrative aspects of the fund. Why would there need to be more
people involved with that?

	Or are you thinking of something else? I would agree that everybody
should get opportunities to suggest projects, and that it shouldn't be the
same tired faces doing all the nominations.

- Paul
_______________________________________________
KWLUG-Disc mailing list
KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc