[kwlug-disc] FLOSS Fund nomination for next meeting
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Wed Jun 15 15:50:13 EDT 2011
Paul Nijjar wrote, On 06/15/2011 12:22 PM:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:20:04AM -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
>> Where is the Secret Cabal when you need them ...
> This nomination comes at an interesting time, because of the social
> night and the associated ZoneMinder nomination that received almost no
> donations this month. In addition our queue is currently empty. So
> there are several considerations here.
There is an unfortunate juxtaposition of elements here that is perhaps
misleading / unfortunate. Social Night; ZoneMinder; 'summer'; empty queue.
I find it difficult to believe that ZoneMinder received less donation
than others, merely for being ZoneMinder - likely other factors had
more influence. I expect other nominees less well known received
greater donations, at different meetings / times of the year.
> It feels weird that the Cabal should be discussing this separate from
> the general KWLUG population, but so be it.
> If John's nomination goes through and you don't like it, you are under
> no obligation to contribute. That's what makes the FLOSS Fund
> If John's nomination does not go through, and you wish it did, there
> is nothing preventing you (or John, or whomever) from making a
> separate contribution.
This is a very slippery slope.
There is an apparent, if not actual, dichotomy between intuitive
spirit, and letter, here.
Being at the end of the queue is an unfortunate coincidence. If there
were multiple others in the hopper, ask the question - would the same
decision be made? Would we have ended up in another queue jumping debate?
There is almost a flavour of splitting of hairs here, which leaves a
bad taste - the simple concept of the FLOSS fund almost seeming to
being perverted, into which ready disclaimers of IANAL will become de
The nature and quality of the nominee has now been brought into
individual judgment call, rather than just: Is it FLOSS? This may not
be a good precedent. Granted, this has always been the case, but
whereas the explanation usually consists of 'this is a worthy project'
and provides 'X', now the circumstances of the participants in the
project has become an element.
I, for one, am not keen on debating the merits of a candidate nominee,
what, every 3 months, it seems.
Although it may seem strange for the cabal to debate privately, there
is some merit to it doing so - rather than drag it all out, back and
forth, publicly, collectively boiling down the 'issues' to pertinent
and objective parts, then presenting them, concisely, publicly.
The up front creation of the cabal, in hindsight, was brilliant. For
just such reasons, reasons that certainly didn't occur to me at the
time as being potentially necessary.
In the end, I can see the reasoning: The nominee is Helios. The
reasons for the nomination, or the particular timing, isn't
- however, I wonder if this is a rationalization that should have been
done by the proposer, not the cabal. The simplicity of the concept of
the FLOSS fund, and the transparency of the cabal, has been impinged.
(Transparency in the sense of intuitive predictable result, and the
very need for considered discussion creating a necessary level of
I just wish John, at least in this instance, had sent to the cabal
privately, first. Presented as 'Helios', instead of 'yet another bad
thing has happened to a presumably good person', would probably have
garnered a different reaction. And gotten to the same place.
More information about the kwlug-disc