[Foundation-l] Instant Commons : INCORRECT

[Cormac Lawler]

On 6/7/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 6/5/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 6/5/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The problem now is to get the grant from Kennisnet.
> >>
> >>I very much doubt that given our discussions in February, but I'll be
> >>happy to call Jan-Bart to clarify things.
> >
> >
> > As was clarified by e-mail, the situation is exactly as I expected.
> > Kennisnet is working for the WMF to complete the transaction.
> >
> > Erik
>
> As was also mentionned, the spc had not been informed whether the grant
> was okay or not, nor of how much it was planned to be (still unclear by
> the way).
>
> I'd like that you make the effort to recognise that we are acting in
> good faith and trying to make our best. I may also hint at the fact that
> we are volunteers and that volunteers can *choose* to take care of a
> proposal... or not. We are under no obligation to spend hours studying
> your proposals, and may prefer to focus on other issues of more interest
> to us or where people will appreciate a bit more the efforts of the
> team. The comments you made are not motivating in the least. You may
> criticize as much as you feel like, but one drawback may be that the
> next proposal Gerard or you make, finds nobody to take care of and is
> simply forwarded to the board for consideration.
>
> Anthere
>


Before this thread descends into chaos, I'd just like to point out
that we (the SPC)  *are* trying to get InstantCommons going, and are
doing it the best we can. Truth is, this is a complicated project that
many of us have been confused about the exact details of how it is to
be managed.

On the SPC, we generally take responsibility for specific projects (or
aspects of them) individually or as a group. Consequently, I was not
fully aware of InstantCommons' progress until this came up on the
mailing list. I would also appreciate some good faith as Anthere said
- an email to us would possibly work better than a public criticism,
though criticism, where appropriate and well-intentioned, is always a
good thing.

But I would like to nip a potential interpretation of Anthere's mail
in the bud here. We do *not* reject or accept proposed projects on the
SPC based on the proposer's personality. It does help if they are
willing to work with us, patiently, until we can get their projects
sufficiently worked out, but this has nothing to do with liking the
person - it's about liking the *proposal*. And we like InstantCommons
:-)

Cormac