On what we want to support: travel?

Colleagues,

Some recent discussion among the fund group[1] have included a number
of arguments that how community funds are spent require something
like community consensus about spending priorities. Josh Drake has
just posted a fundraising appeal. I support his appeal; but I think
that we need to have some discussion about how the community wants
to spend money raised in its name. Hence this note.

Particularly pressing, in my view, is an open request to disburse
funds for travel. I think it would be singularly inappropriate to
discuss the merits of individual requests here, on a list with a
public archive[2]. But I do think it is correct to open the question
of whether the community likes, in general, the idea of paying the
air fare, accommodation, meeting fees, &c. for community
representatives to speak in various locations around the world.

I think the following two questions need answers:

1. Do we think it is a good idea, in general, to fund
individuals' travel, assuming such individuals are fairly prominent
members of the community?

2. If the answer to (1) is "yes", what weight do such cases
carry compared to other possible expenditures, such as paying coders
for features; paying for hardware or network service; paying for
community presence at exhibitions (e.g. getting a "commercial" booth
at a trade fair); paying for marketing such as advertisements,
conference "swag", release CDs, and the like; paying for tools for
individual (or groups of) developers, such as real copies of the SQL
standard; or even paying for entry to the "industry" groups or
standards like TPC, ANSI, &c.? The list is not exhaustive; make up
your own case.

It is critical, in this discussion, to understand that votes can't be
taken here on specific cases. In fact, the entire authority for
disbursement currently rests with one person -- one whose authority
can be rescinded by the PGFG at any time, but who nevertheless has
complete control over financial decisions until that time. This is
on purpose, because we were attempting to make the process as
lightweight as possible in order to ensure quick decisions could be
made for relatively trivial cases. We are relying on the traditional
good faith of the community participants, plus the observant eye of
the wider community, to avoid abuses.[3]

With all of that said, I eagerly solicit your views.

Best,
A

[1] Owing to what might be a lacuna in the PGFG charter, it appears
unwise to call it by its "official" name, which is "fundraising
group".

[2] You are welcome to disagree with this assertion, but I ask you to
start another thread if you want to.

[3] This arrangement is not, in my opinion, controversial; in fact, I
think it's a good idea. But if you think otherwise, please see note
[2].

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
--Brad Holland