Hi Damien -
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab@gmx.de> wrote:
> Here is how it is unfair: If I understand the basic process of selecting and
> supporting projects by ESUG, then the distribution of projects supported by
> ESUG is roughly equivalent to the popularity of the various communities.
> This seems entirely fair and reasonable to me, and ESUG is doing a good job
> with the various projects it supports.
>
> However, once ESUG starts giving chunks of money to particular dialects
> directly, then first of all that money is no longer spent across the various
> dialects.
I would agree with you if ESUG was spending 100% of the money it has.
Sponsoring Pharo won't affect other potential sponsoring (unless we
get 5 times more sponsoring requests than last year in which case we
might not positively answer to all of them). I invite all
representatives of other dialects to send the board sponsoring
requests. But we can't wait for all dialects to ask for money before
spending part of it.
Which is fine. And perhaps there is a really simple answer then: First, sponsor all the projects that apply to ESUG. If, at the end of year, there is money left, donate it based on the relative distribution of projects over the year. So for example:
ESUG budget: 15k
Projects:
5 Pharo projects x 1k = 5k
2 Squeak projects x 1k = 2k
1 GST project x 2k = 2k
2 high profile papers x 500 = 1k
Over the year you've spent a total of 10k on those projects. If you split (for simplicity) the remaining 5k based on the total sum used by each project (yeah, yeah, I know there other ways of doing this, I'm just making an example) then you would end up with:
Pharo: 2.500 EUR
Squeak: 1000 EUR
GST: 1000 EUR
VW: 500 EUR
And except from the difficulty of who to give the money to in the case of VW, the entire process is both transparent and fair. And has an incentive for the various dialects to go out and work with ESUG.
> There is nothing wrong with sponsoring Pharo projects by ESUG. What's wrong
> is giving the money, which would otherwise be spent in some relation to the
> popularity of each dialect, to one dialect only.
In the past, ESUG supported Squeak e.V. and the Squeak VM. What is the
difference?
Squeak e.V. is not about developing Squeak as such you can't compare it membership in the Pharo consortium (it would be more like sponsoring a book or so which ESUG certainly does). As for the Squeak VM, first of all I have no clue who got sponsored by ESUG. Probably John Macintosh because I know neither me, nor Ian, nor Eliot, nor David, nor Dan, nor John ever got any support from ESUG. Secondly, (and I'm guessing here since I really don't know who got sponsored for what) I would think that the scope was probably rather specific, i.e., support for this or that Mac feature or somesuch, rather than "oh, just do some Squeak VM development we don't care what it is" which is the style of support for the Pharo consortium. I think sponsoring specific projects is good, it's handing out money without specific goals and targets that I don't like.
Cheers,
- Andreas