On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 20:24 -0500, David Van Horn wrote: > Thomas Lord wrote: > > There should be money in there, somehow. > > > > Work is work. This work is socially valuable. > > > > Where's the money? > > Many of the nominees already have support for this kind of work--
All the more reason to want a budget (in some abstract sense) for this effort - so that political influence at the highest levels does not remain a privilege of an economically and institutionally elite class. > -their > professional responsibilities include a service component that could > include committee work like this, so in a very real sense they would be > paid for their work. Yes. And, they are all extremely honorable people and *any* election results are unlikely to suck. Really. I believe in Scheme as a thing unto itself that is socially valuable. I do not think that we should, as a society, tie its definition to a small group of institutions. There is no need. There are probably simple ways to monetize the whole process, modestly, so as to democratize access to office. That's all I'm saying. Well - I would add that the whole "sub-committee"-oriented organizing process I described would be more likely to be possible and to function if there was some modest money floating around to reward time and attention spent to this important, work-requiring process. > For the viability of the process, I think it is > important to select nominees who have this kind of support. > I see. As a practical measure "as things stand" I would have to agree. And, to so agree - makes me far less certain about my proposed slate. I guess I can say that my raising the topic of money here kind of complements my ideal slate proposal. > If you'd like to provide support for those who don't have it, you could > write a grant proposal to the NSF or some other funding agency. Times > are tough, so good luck. > Why not just Sun, HP, Dell, Canonical, Intel, Novell, Red Hat, and a few others - assuming the request is modest (but not so modest as to be ineffective). The Scheme community has the structural deficiency of lacking a fiduciary authority suitable for posing such an "ask" to such corps and committing to some governance rules. On the other hand, the Scheme community includes some prominent and influential member(s) at some such firms who could help to creatively resolve that problem without *too* badly perturbing the political balances within the Scheme community. It would seem to me a rational investment from the perspectives of those firms and one easy to commit to given the scale and the credible names already attached. The main question/problem is how to communicate and implement that. It's "Open Source" R&D. One of the best labs in the whole complex. Pay up. (So to speak.) -t > David _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
