On 2/28/07, Ovid <publiustemp-p5p3@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This seems like something that should be handled by the donations to > > TPF (or some similar organization) by hiring a professional to do it > > right. Isnt this exactly why we have a donation fund? So that we can > > pay to get the stuff that we arent good at done properly by a > > professional? > > Speaking from my experience running the TPF Grant Committee, I can > promise you that while I do like this idea, I also know we could > potentially expect howls of protest from folks. Hell, I can't tell you > how many times we've approved a very worthwhile grant only for me to > get an email or see a posting from someone about what an incredible > waste of money X is.[1] While you are probably right just on the grounds that there is no shortage of shortsighted people in the world, i have to wonder how many people really would object to using professional fundrasing organizations to do this, provided of course that a) the finances were transparent, and b) they were actually generating more money than they cost. And note that I did say that TPF should support targetted donations. I think TPF would see a net increase if they improved the visibility of their finances and also provided targetted donations. Then the only grounds to complain would be if someone donated to PR for Perl 5 and found out that it was spent on something else. > Personally I'd love for someone to float a trial balloon in front of > the Perl community about this idea. Eventually ill post something to Perlmonks if you like. > [1] Actually, my favorite complaint is from people telling me that if > we don't get enough done, we should just get more volunteers. That's > when my brain comes close to melting from trying to figure out whether > I should laugh or choke them to death. Choke. Much more effective. :-) yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next