[kwlug-disc] FLOSS Fund nomination for next meeting
Andrew Sullivan Cant
acant at alumni.uwaterloo.ca
Thu Jun 16 09:38:54 EDT 2011
> 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.
I disagree. This list is for discussing LUG business as well as more
general FLOSS topics.
Nomination and discussion of candidates/projects which someone is not
sure will be accepted, give the Shadowy Cabal more material to think
about when making the final decision.
> The FLOSS fund pages make it pretty clear what an 'obviously reasonable'
> candidate is.
It does not. And entirely on purpose to avoid legalistic bickering.
From the FLOSS page:
The FLOSS Fund attempts to address free software neglect by
providing a structured way for LUG members to express appreciation
and support for their favourite free software. Each month, members
make voluntary contributions to a software project, and then we send
off those contributions to the developers to show our appreciation
for their hard work.
I can see a donation to this project as support for either a FLOSS
project (e.g., helping the contributors get back to working on it) or
support for a FLOSS contributor (e.g., helping someone who makes a
direct contribution to the project).
Final decisions are made by the Shadowy Cabal after hearing opinions and
considering the project. If you do not like some choices then do not
donate that month. And make a nomination of a project that you think is
(mwahahahah, and disappears into the night)
(P.S.: If these periodic discussion also make us think more about
donating money to projects outside of any structure, that could also be
a good thing.)
> 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,
> 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.
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
More information about the kwlug-disc