Re: [Linux-aus] LCA HOWTO Grant

[James Purser <purserj@k-sit.com>]

Off the top of my head and completely uninformed about the grant rules
and regulations it seems to me that this would an administrative task
rather than a special project.

I have no problem with the money being spent on this, I'm just not sure
whether it should come out of the grants funds.

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 03:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Well, no one else seems game to put this up for comment, so I will :)
> 
> Context:
> 
> For the past few years, there's been talk of putting together a HOWTO 
> document on running linux.conf.au, to make it easier for new groups to 
> get up to speed, to help avoid forgetting to cover important things 
> during ghosts, and to help people thinking about putting in a bid to 
> host linux.conf.au know what's expected and what they're getting 
> themselves into. It also seems like it might be a useful document for 
> people trying to run other lca-like conferences. Unfortunately, post-lca 
> burnout and other commitments tend to mean this keeps not happening.
> 
> This year we've got an offer from Alison Russell, one of this year's 
> organisers, to schedule some real time to putting the document together. 
>   The caveats are that she wouldn't be writing it alone, but rather 
> collecting and coordinating entries and information from past organisers 
> and editting it together, and that she'd expect some remuneration for 
> the work, since she'll be treating it as work.
> 
> The proposal:
> 
> For Alison Russell to coordinate and assist with authorship of entries 
> for the LCA HOWTO from previous organising teams, and to compile, edit, 
> and complete the document for use by the current and future LCA 
> organising teams and others.
> 
> The details:
> 
> Alison anticipates it will take me about a week of full-time work to get 
> a decent draft ready. I imagine after that it will take another week or
> two to get feedback and incorporate it. This assumes I get a moderate
> amount of feedback in a timely manner. Probably 10 - 15 days full time
> work.
> 
> Dedicating up to two days a week to the project, with 15 days work is 
> about eight weeks to finish.
> 
> The grant:
> 
> Fixed payment of $2000 to Alison Russell for the work. (An estimated 
> rate of $130/day)
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> I think this project is a good use of LA's funds: it helps ensure that 
> future LCA's continue to be a success; it encourages more cool open 
> source conferences in Australia; and it enhances Australia's reputation 
> for open source know-how. I think the expense is justifiable, both 
> because we've already failed a couple of times at finding anyone willing 
> and able to do the project on a purely volunteer basis, and compared to 
> the expense that the Ghosts weekends we already incur each year.
> 
> I suspect it would be trivial to have this approved either as one of 
> LCA's many internal expenses, or as a special motion within the ctte; 
> but I think doing it as a grant would be superior since that gives a 
> public example of the sorts of considerations that should be taken into 
> account in asking for "payment for work done" from LA, rather than the 
> usual "please reimburse me for expenses incurred" requests. Whether that 
> ends up being a high or a low burden, having it publicly hashed out and 
> a precedent in place seems useful to me.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> My understanding is the LCA2005 organising ctte are happy with this 
> proposal -- are there any concerns I don't know about? Part of the 
> spirit of LCA is being willing to chip in without asking for something 
> in return; Alison's already done a lot of that, but obviously others 
> have done more, is there any concern that this is unreasonable, or 
> related discomfort?
> 
> Are there any comments on the payment? Is the community happy for the 
> committee to just decide on the level of review, and whether payment 
> should be in advance or arrears; or do people think that some or all of 
> the payment should be withheld until completion as a matter of course? I 
> would expect that our informal "ghosts of conference past" will advise 
> the committee whether they're satisfied with the document or it needs 
> more work -- that's people like Steven Hanley (Canberra lca lead), 
> Michael Davies (Adelaide lca lead, ex LA-ctte member), Mark Tearle 
> (Perth lca organiser, current LA treasurer), Tony Breeds (Canberra and 
> Perth lca organiser), Anthony Towns (me, Brisbane lca organiser, current 
> LA secretary). Are there any concerns that ought to be considered by the 
> committee in relation to that? Is there any reason to worry that the 
> people who will probably be contributing to the document will be judging 
> when it's finished?
> 
> Are there other comments or concerns that I haven't thought of?
> 
> Please feel free and encouraged to reply either to this list 
> (linux-aus), or to send private comments to either the LA committee 
> (committee@linux.org.au), or to Jon Oxer as LA president 
> (president@linux.org.au), or myself (secretary@linux.org.au), even if 
> you've got nothing more to say than "rock on!!" or "i dunno about this..."
> 
> We'll be reviewing comments received and discussing the proposal at our 
> face to face meeting in Adelaide this weekend.
> 
> Thanks for your time :)
> 
> Cheers,
> aj
-- 
James Purser
http://k-sit.com