No subject

to get them to write up a grant application first.  Being forced to
write a grant application is not too much different to a bank asking you
to write up a business plan.  Anyone who has done this knows it focuses
the mind wonderfully on sorting out what you want to do, how you are
going to achieve it, how to get it done the most efficient way possible,
and how much effort is going to be required.

Writing up such plans is not something most people do naturally.  They
have to be pushed into do it.  Yet if you ask a successful business
whether their business plan actually helped get their endeavour off the
ground, the answer is invariably an empathic yes.

LA is in the same position of privilege the banks find themselves in,
and I think to not use this position to prod people gently into doing
some planning is a bad thing.  I see it as part LA's role in the
community to provide just this sort of guidance.

If I thought there was no other choice in this case, then perhaps my
position on abandoning this role would be different.  As it is LA is
setting a precedent.  Here we have an organisation that could easily put
together a grant application.  Their stated goals are seemingly well
supported with the community, then have obviously incurred expenses
already, and as you point out there are more very justifiable ones
coming such as the not for profit application.  Yet you are effectively
saying LA should put its procedures aside because they are good guys
with a good cause, and they deserve a show of support.

Sorry, but I can't bring myself to agree.  Where possible LA should not
be basing its decisions on personalities and dreams.  Setting that
precedent would be a mistake.  If as some have argued it has already
been set, then re-enforcing it would be a mistake.

To put it another way, if LA's wants to make a show of support to the
Ada Initiative, I think the right idea is to publicly invite them to put
in a grant application.