[kwlug-disc] FLOSS Fund nomination for next meeting

[unsolicited]

John Johnson wrote, On 06/15/2011 4:04 PM:
> On 2011-06-15 15:50, unsolicited wrote:
>> I just wish John, at least in this instance, had sent to the cabal 
>> privately, first.
> 
> Are you suggesting that all candidates for nomination be submitted to a 
> committee for vetting, before public consideration and debate.
> How very Harper of you!

And how very unworthy of you.

No, I am suggesting that questionable or marginal nominations be given 
a sober second thought before public presentation. Nothing prevents 
the nomination, regardless, however, second opinions and consultation 
can have value.

The FLOSS fund pages make it pretty clear what an 'obviously 
reasonable' candidate is.

John (Kerr) has been around long enough to understand the amazing 
amount of pointless traffic, that drives people to cancel their list 
subscriptions and cease KWLUG participation, some things, such as 
this, produce.

Your post is a perfect example of such traffic.

> Or should John have said something like, "I nominate Helios, the 
> developers of which ..... "

Correct - which would fall directly in line with the purposes of the 
floss fund, achieve the desired goal, and take the flamewar aspects of 
the issue out of the equation. However, I completely understand that 
that is not an intuitive way to go about this, in this instance.

Even better, post nominations to the website, not the list, as, IIRC, 
the floss fund pages indicate a preference for.

> That he chose to, effectively, nominate the developers directly and not 
> the product shows the human side/cost to development. And life.

Correct. This is an example of an extremely flamewar potential topic, 
for which there is no correct answer. Far better discussed and debated 
voice, or privately, than inundating the list with such.

There have been various debates over the years over what the floss 
fund is, and is not, and what kwlug is, and is not. It is clear that 
kwlug is not a generic social institution, otherwise candidates would 
be drawn from the social cause of the day. Which, to Raul's point, is 
the easy way to read the nomination. The social cause of the day has 
been explicitly, and repeatedly, rejected as floss fund candidates in 
the past. Often with a great deal of member-losing traffic in the 
process.

To my mind, this phase of this thread has run its course. Please take 
it off-line, or begin a new thread. There is no point inundating 150+ 
people. It would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask that these 
issues be discussed, voice, at the next meeting.