[kwlug-disc] FLOSS Fund nomination for next meeting

[L.D. Paniak]

I appreciate and applaud the Cabal's management of this issue.  Even if
I may not necessarily agree with their decision.



On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 09:38 -0400, Andrew Sullivan Cant wrote:
> > 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 
> appropriate.
> 
> Andrew
> (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,
> > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kwlug-disc mailing list
> > kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> > http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20110616/5c782eb3/attachment.sig>