Re: On what we want to support: travel?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:56:49PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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?

Very often the conferences will pay for the speakers as they did for
me in Venezuela last week. However, there are those conferences
which cannot afford such luxuries. For those conferences, our presence
is usually very welcome and well received. I would certainly consider
more conferences if the tab were paid. I'm sure there are at least
a handful of us willing to travel to more conferences is the trips
were paid for.

Based on our generous welcome in Venezuela's Foro Mundial, people are very
pleased to see open source alternatives to Oracle and ways to move
away from mysql.

>
> 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

I also agree that infrastructure comes first, then travel and all else.

>
--elein(at)varlena(dot)com