I think in our case the advantages would be
a) it saves a lot of volunteer time because applications would need
much less assessment
b) it protects the system from the perpetual accusation that "there
are some people who always get scholarships"
c) it also removes "skill in writing applications" as a factor in
deciding who gets a scholarship
The drawback would be
d) arguably it might reduce the impact of the event, if quality of
application is in fact linked to the impact from a particular person
attending the conference
It's worth noting that the other big movement event, the Wikimedia
Conference, does not award scholarships based on applications, or
merit - the WMF just funds whoever various chapters and user groups
want to attend (which is more often a case of who's the first to put
up their hand, or the last to run out of the room, than any kind of
rigorous process)
Not saying that a lottery would necessarily be the right answer but
the more I think about it the more I think "well, what IS the case for
application-based scholarships, and do they really achieve the goals
for the event?"
Chris
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Keating, 05/06/2018 18:53:
Thinking about it, drawing lots might not be the silliest idea in the
universe.
Sure. It's used in several kinds of official selections and there's ample
research on the effects. That said, it's rarely popular, because it's often
perceived as a failure or last resort.
Federico