> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dunlap, Randy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 4:47 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [linux-usb] Linux-USB Purchase Request Fund (discussion)
> Purchase Request Fund
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Basically someone makes a request to the purchase fund
> "committee" (?) and the committee decides whether to
> grant or deny the request. The ground rules really
> aren't set up yet, but in my mind, the request:
>
> a. could be for a hardware or software purchase;
>
> b. does not have to be for a USB device, could be any
> hardware or software that enables someone to
> contribute or continue to contribute to the
> development of Linux, Linux-USB, or other open-source
> software projects (although this might receive some
> rework, rewording, such as to enable any open-source
> Linux or *BSD development).
>
> So for example, if you needed another hard drive or memory
> or a USB device and you submitted a request & justification
> for it, we might approve it. I doubt that we would ever
> verify that you were using the device as you indicated you would.
>
> Other points:
>
> c. We haven't decided whether the purchase fund would
> only be for expense reimbursements or the money could be
> issued before someone makes their purchase.
> d. Besides me, only Johannes Erdfelt has offered to help
> by being on the purchase request find "committee."
> If you want to help, please let me know.
>
>
> The award or grant from the purchase request fund is
> "permanent." Whoever receives the grant owns the hardware
> or software that they purchase with it. (Of course, they
> could also share it with others who could use it.)
Above are okay. Some supplemental suggestions based on my time in the
grants admin biz within US higher education ...
I assume that the purpose is to enable people without enough money to be
able to make a larger contribution to the open source community. Or what is
it otherwise?
Publicly list the applications received and flag those approved. Show
cumulative approvals, delete the non-approved after they are considered.
People who decide what to fund should be anonymous. Focus on the process,
not the individuals. Committee of six, but only three decide in a given
round, for example.
Don't bother to collect receipts. Instead ask each recipient to post a
message within two months saying how this item actually contributed to what
they proposed. Link these to the cumulative approved list so it is evident
which recipients have not reported back.
Allow applicants to ask for money up front, considering that the pool is to
help those with less resources (continuing to assume). The cost of paying
earlier rather than later is just a few cents of lost interest on the
holding account. The risk of paying earlier is that some people might take
the money and not do what is intended, but the same people could also fake
up a receipt. Assume that people who go to the trouble of filing a credible
application are serious and honest, and use community opinion (via the "what
I did" statements) as a deterrent for those few who might abuse.
Consider a range of $60 - $600. Too much overhead for littler awards, not
enough people assisted if higher.
-- Steve Pacenka, Cornell University, NYS Water Resources Institute
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
