Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Free software project grants

[Alex Hudson]

On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 16:44, MJ Ray wrote:
> > When people make applications, I think they ought to be publically
> > viewable. I've not really seen a convincing argument that they should 
> > be private.
> 
> There may be a good argument to keep any financial information 
> submitted as justification for the requested amount private, in order 
> to avoid disclosing that to commercial competitors. 

There might be; I just don't see it.

I'm taking it virtually as read that any work done under these grants is
going to be at best commercially dubious; or of no commercial value
whatsoever. If it is of commercial value, then you're unlikely to pass
the 'we need this money' test - there are hundreds of VCs out there, and
many more trusts/grants for innovative projects. Go see Business Link,
it's not us.

Plus, we're talking small amounts of money really, and only a few
grants. If that information is commercially sensitive, then you probably
also fail the 'is the project likely to complete' test too.

The basic assumption I think we have to make is that although this isn't
going to be a great deal of money, the task could not be completed
without it (or, it would at least be difficult). Ergo, you can't stump
up the money yourself - that basically tells a competitor all they need
to know. I don't see that the detailed reasoning behind that fact is
really going to make any difference.

> Further, I agree that it shouldn't 
> turn into a popularity contest, but give members the opportunity to 
> submit supportive statements for an application if they so wish.

I'm not sure on what basis we could take those statements into account,
though.

> drawn up.  I am not sure it will be possible to judge entirely on 
> guidelines, as that leads to "scorecard" mentality which may not 
> benefit anyone involved.

The benefit is complete transparency. You have to know the basis on
which you will be judged. Having guidelines and scoring against them is
the only basis on which I can see you do that. If there is intrinsic
'goodness' in the project which scoring misses, then the guidelines are
wrong. 

I much prefer the scenario with a fixed set of guidelines and an
explanation to how projects will be scored than a set of guides and a
statement that 'we will pick the ones which best do this'. That kind of
'flexibility' is bogus, in my opinion. We have to let people know how
they will be judged, so they can submit the best proposal possible. If
the proposal doesn't make it, it didn't fit with our goals. 

Cheers,

Alex.