On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Robert Haas
<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think that's it exactly. Basically, if you fund reviewers,
and we get lots more people doing reviews and they're all great, I'll
be happy. If you fund reviewers, and we get lots more people doing
reviews and they're all terrible, I'll be unhappy. And likewise if
you do or don't fund mentors. The results matter a lot, and none of
us know that for sure yet.
This makes sense. I should clarify that this point in time were talking about one maybe two people can awarded grants. Over the course of a year I wouldn't expect more that four grants issued (at least for now.) With these numbers, there is too much to be gained or lost from the perceptive of the community in my opinion.
I think all I (and others) are asking you
do is think about it carefully before you decide what to do; I at
least am not trying to push you down any particular path.
Fair enough.
> So any person regardless of association or funding is free to approach to
> community for assistance.
I strongly agree with that statement. Of course, all such help is on
a best-effort, volunteer basis. If you need more than that, you can
try (a) begging, (b) T-shirts, or (c) money. What's not clear to me
is whether you do in fact need more than that, and which of (a)-(c) is
the best way to get it.
> In addition, third party organizations should
> maintain a healthy disconnection from the community.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Now that I read it, I not sure what I meant either. :) How about this: the selection, management, and oversight of grants and mentees should be opaque to the community so as to prevent distraction. There should be no appearance of community endorsement of such programs.
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
