+1 -mpg
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Howard Butler <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree. The history of the award has been a cloistered deliberation of > private nominations. The award is not a political exercise, or at least it > hasn't been to this point, and public nominations tip things toward the > lobbying direction. Every open source contributor wouldn't mind an award in > the field of excellence, and every contributor deserves a pat on the back or > two. > > Open nominations opens up a more than few cans of worms: > > - I won't say some stuff about a person in a public nomination that I would > in a private one. First off, I don't want to embarrass them, as some people > are embarrassed by public fawning. > > - Not every activity and action needs to be billboarded. If you look at the > list of past winners, a common trait they all share is they all have kept > their heads down and done a lot for the community as whole without regard to > recognition. > > - I might not want everyone to know who I'm nominating. > > - Are we voting on the award? Lobbying the committee? What does a public > nomination achieve other than to provide a (biased) public attaboy? There are > plenty of opportunities for those that do not have to be conflated with a > nomination process. > > The award is selected by an exclusive group of individuals, and this act > makes it an exclusive award. The Oscar or Peabody or Pulitzer of open source > GIS is much more interesting than the People's Choice. Let's keep it that way. > > Howard > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
