[kwlug disc.] FLOSS Fund update

[Unsolicited at gto.net]

>>>>>
> project' statement, to be read by someone (preferably the nominator) at
the meeting.
	Thinking about this on my commute from the university, I think this
is a good idea. However, I would not make the "why this is a great project"
part optional.
<<<<<

If there is already reluctance on the part of people to be heard/speak, this
isn't going to help, and it should be optional. Having said that, the
project better be self-evidently worthwhile (usually due to a presentation
on it), some sort of explanation had to have been made in order to be
nominated in the first place, and if some sort of explanation is not
forthcoming the nomination should die by virtue of its own lack of
self-support. 

>>>>>
	I would also propose the following restriction: only one project per
person can be in queue at any one time. Given the current situation, that
would mean that Chris needs to choose between his two nominated projects,
and Richard needs to choose one of his four, and the rest of us should
decide whether these are the projects we really want to support.
<<<<<

Sounds good, but, the person should be free to withdraw their current
nominee in favour of a different one. Doing so sends that nomination back to
the beginning in terms of garnering support.


> 	This actually causes a few logistical issues, so you might want to
see whether you really want this.

This is good, but I think we should get back to the simplifying point
decided upon earlier - in the end, the deposit of money into the fishbowl is
not only an acceptance that (a) the fishbowl managers will do whatever they
want with it, and (b) of the fishbowl managers themselves. If they have a
problem with that, don't contribute, and do something about it going
forward.

The managers are the keeper of the queue, maintained on the web page. Only
they should be able to author the web page. 

You make good points, so I would suggest a sibling page noting all these
good guidelines that they should follow. [It's easy to forget and get into a
rut, but less so if you have guidelines to frequently refer to.] These
guidelines would be maintained by the web site maintainers, not the
managers. I choose to place such authority in the hands of the maintainers,
just as I do the managers. If the managers choose to ignore the guidelines,
so be it. There is recourse after the fact, and current actions wouldn't be
life threatening.

-----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 2:35 PM
To: kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
Subject: Re: [kwlug disc.] FLOSS Fund update

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Adam Glauser wrote:

> > 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.
>
>
> Andrew and I were discussing this a bit after the last meeting, and 
> based on that discussion, my proposal is (c) let's go through the 
> project nominations in FIFO (First In First Out) order.  The nominator 
> must provide a description of the project and the method of 
> contribution to the cabal, and optionally a 'why this is a great 
> project' statement, to be read by someone (preferably the nominator) at
the meeting.
	Thinking about this on my commute from the university, I think this
is a good idea. However, I would not make the "why this is a great project"
part optional.

	I would also propose the following restriction: only one project per
person can be in queue at any one time. Given the current situation, that
would mean that Chris needs to choose between his two nominated projects,
and Richard needs to choose one of his four, and the rest of us should
decide whether these are the projects we really want to support.

	Another property to consider if you think that the same old faces
are contributing too much: make the queue a priority queue. New nominators
(i.e. those who have never gotten a project chosen before) take priority
over established ones (people who are nominating a second or later project).
	This actually causes a few logistical issues, so you might want to
see whether you really want this.

> It was my understanding that the results of the prior meeting's 
> fishbowl
> > contributions would be announced at the next meeting.
>
> Sounds good to me.  With luck we can post this info on kwlug.org as 
> well, which will also serve to keep track of which projects are 
> ineligible for
> repeat- see (ii) above.

	Where will the queue live? On the FLOSS Fund page? You can edit this
page if you have an account.

	What is the queue right now? I don't remember the relative order of
nominations (I think Chris's FSF was first, then Unsolicited's trixbox, then
Chris's drupal, then mine, with Richard's many suggestions happening all
over the place.) I guess we can look through posting dates to get the real
order, but this needs to be done.

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