[kwlug-disc] FLOSS Fund nomination for next meeting

[unsolicited]

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
> voluntary.
> 
> 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 
rigeur.

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 
necessarily pertinent.

- 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 
opacity.)

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.