Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:31:02PM -0700, Michael Dean wrote:
>>
>>> However, lacking a concrete organization where lines of authority are
>>> clearly understood and established, this is easier said than done!
>>>
>> Presumably, we don't have that problem here. A proposal could come
>> to the funds group liason, and the laison would decide whether to
>> fund it or not. I'd expect an arrangement of percentages of agreed
>> funding for milestones reached.
>>
Ad hoc decisions by an appointed committee that is reactive to
indiosyncratic proposals seems somewhat unethical. Perhaps I am wrong,
but wouldn't it be better if there were a document clearly specifying
spending priorities that was relatively accepted by consensus of a broad
group of pg'ers, and that an opportunity to qualify for these monies
could be promulgated to the broader group?
