Perl 6 fundraising and related topics.

During the course of collecting material for the Perl 6 wiki
section on Perl 6 articles and presentations
(http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_articles_and_presentat
ions),
I've repeatedly encountered remarks about how much Perl 6
development is constrained by the fairly severe time and
energy constraints of its overwhelmingly volunteer
development team. 

So over the next few months, I'm planning to learn about
fundraising, and see what I can accomplish on behalf of Perl
6 development. To that end, I'm soliciting:
(1) your suggestions for preparation,
(2) your ideas for proposals, and
(3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
    and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
    extremely leveraged causes (technically, economically,
    and socially).

I'll also put whatever fundraising-oriented material I come
up with on the Perl 6 wiki, to help and encourage others
along similar lines.

Thanks much in advance.

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker

www.AthenaLab.com

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6  - Official Perl 6 Wiki
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot - Official Parrot Wiki


0
conrad
2/21/2008 4:55:07 AM
perl.perl6.users 1218 articles. 0 followers. Follow

56 Replies
548 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 21

> I've repeatedly encountered remarks about how much Perl 6
> development is constrained by the fairly severe time and
> energy constraints of its overwhelmingly volunteer
> development team.

I think that is a valid point.
On the other hand the language has to become mature gradually, and that
process can't be sped up easily. But I think in many areas we have reached
that maturity now.

> So over the next few months, I'm planning to learn about
> fundraising, and see what I can accomplish on behalf of Perl
> 6 development.

Very nice.

> To that end, I'm soliciting:
> (1) your suggestions for preparation,
> (2) your ideas for proposals, and
> (3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
>     and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
>     extremely leveraged causes (technically, economically,
>     and socially).
>
> I'll also put whatever fundraising-oriented material I come
> up with on the Perl 6 wiki, to help and encourage others
> along similar lines.

I'd like to raise the question what to do with the money, assuming that
you can acquire some.

I see two possible route:

1) Let The Perl Foundation decide what to do with the money
advantage: they already have a comitee (is that really an advantage? ;-)
disadvantage: they seem to think that Perl 6 on Parrot is _the_ and the
only way to go. (There's nothing wrong with rakudo and parrot, but Perl 6
is, by definition, a language. And it should have multiple
implementations)

2) Decide it in some other way, without involvement from TPF.
advantage: presumably no bias towards one implementation
disadvantage: we have to think of a way to decide who gets the money. (And
hackers tend to not wanting to decide such things, and invest time into
them).


As for your third point, why Perl 6 (+parrot) is the all empowering
technology:
 * it unites many programming paradigms
 * simple but powerful parsing facilities
 * modern concurrency (think STM, autothreading)
 * mechanisms to easily interoperate with other languages
 * it's easy to use libraries from other dynamic languages
 * backwards compatibility to perl 5 (not on the language level though)

Cheers,
Moritz

0
moritz
2/21/2008 8:38:52 AM
[...]

>>To that end, I'm soliciting:
>>(1) your suggestions for preparation,
>>(2) your ideas for proposals, and
>>(3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
>>    and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
>>    extremely leveraged causes (technically, economically,
>>    and socially).
>>
>>I'll also put whatever fundraising-oriented material I come
>>up with on the Perl 6 wiki, to help and encourage others
>>along similar lines.
>>    
>>
>
>I'd like to raise the question what to do with the money, assuming that
>you can acquire some.
>
>I see two possible route:
>
>1) Let The Perl Foundation decide what to do with the money
>advantage: they already have a comitee (is that really an advantage? ;-)
>disadvantage: they seem to think that Perl 6 on Parrot is _the_ and the
>only way to go. (There's nothing wrong with rakudo and parrot, but Perl 6
>is, by definition, a language. And it should have multiple
>implementations)
>  
>
Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now?

It's really hard to define what the community wants: noone can speak on 
behalf of the whole community (and the community has many ideas about 
things :)) However, and strongly IMHO, what most Perl users want is very 
simple: to have a not-too-slow Perl6 implementation that runs most of 
the current Perl6 specification - without too much bugs. Maybe the Perl 
Foundation got some people who can decide what we need to achieve that - 
someone must make a decision where the money should go anyway.

Surely it is very nice to have many implementations (we have seen how 
much helpful the Pugs project was to help Perl6, for example), but could 
that happen (or: be sponsored) *after* we have *one* that is fairly 
complete?? After some time, one imlementations will emerge and become 
*the* implementations anyway.

What I would like to add is that IMHO this time implementators should be 
sponsored. That is: those who hack and those who answer their questions 
on how to hack. :)

I also think that different Perl groups all around the world could be 
responsive. Let's contact the gazillion perl lists and say: "...if you 
like Perl, please give $10 to the \"Let's have Perl6 now!\" foundation!" 
I would, and I will personally send anyone to /dev/null who would not! :)

- Fagzal


0
concept
2/21/2008 10:43:17 AM
> [...]
>
>>>To that end, I'm soliciting:
>>>(1) your suggestions for preparation,
>>>(2) your ideas for proposals, and
>>>(3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
>>>    and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
>>>    extremely leveraged causes (technically, economically,
>>>    and socially).
>>>
>>>I'll also put whatever fundraising-oriented material I come
>>>up with on the Perl 6 wiki, to help and encourage others
>>>along similar lines.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'd like to raise the question what to do with the money, assuming that
>>you can acquire some.
>>
>>I see two possible route:
>>
>>1) Let The Perl Foundation decide what to do with the money
>>advantage: they already have a comitee (is that really an advantage? ;-)
>>disadvantage: they seem to think that Perl 6 on Parrot is _the_ and the
>>only way to go. (There's nothing wrong with rakudo and parrot, but Perl 6
>>is, by definition, a language. And it should have multiple
>>implementations)
>>
>>
> Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now?

Let's ask the other way round: Is this the time for only one
implementation? And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?

What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely, but
possible).


> It's really hard to define what the community wants: noone can speak on
> behalf of the whole community (and the community has many ideas about
> things :)) However, and strongly IMHO, what most Perl users want is very
> simple: to have a not-too-slow Perl6 implementation that runs most of
> the current Perl6 specification - without too much bugs.

I also think that many perl people also want a good Perl 6 specification.
And different implementations help to explore different part of the specs.
That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other
implementations and are therfore much stable and really implementable.

If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers large
parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost pugs
development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.
And I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.

So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?

> Surely it is very nice to have many implementations (we have seen how
> much helpful the Pugs project was to help Perl6, for example), but could
> that happen (or: be sponsored) *after* we have *one* that is fairly
> complete?? After some time, one imlementations will emerge and become
> *the* implementations anyway.

Oh will it? Just like we have one C implementation? Or one Forth
implementation? Or one Lisp implementation?

> What I would like to add is that IMHO this time implementators should be
> sponsored. That is: those who hack and those who answer their questions
> on how to hack. :)

Aye.
And perhaps the ones who write the specs, if they want/need it.

> I also think that different Perl groups all around the world could be
> responsive. Let's contact the gazillion perl lists and say: "...if you
> like Perl, please give $10 to the \"Let's have Perl6 now!\" foundation!"
> I would, and I will personally send anyone to /dev/null who would not! :)

I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.

My idea would be to ask big companies that use perl (for example amazon)
if they would sponsor some of the development.

Are there other organisations that routinely sponsor open source software?
I know if Software in the Public Interest, but I think they only provide
legal backing.

Cheers,
Moritz

0
moritz
2/21/2008 11:14:13 AM
[...]

>>Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now?
>>    
>>
>
>Let's ask the other way round: Is this the time for only one
>implementation? And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?
>
>What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely, but
>possible).
>  
>
Let's give some $$$ to say 3 implementations, see what they come up in a 
month. Lets mupltiply their 1/CPU-time with #of tests passed :), and the 
winner gets the rest of the money.

>>It's really hard to define what the community wants: noone can speak on
>>behalf of the whole community (and the community has many ideas about
>>things :)) However, and strongly IMHO, what most Perl users want is very
>>simple: to have a not-too-slow Perl6 implementation that runs most of
>>the current Perl6 specification - without too much bugs.
>>    
>>
>
>I also think that many perl people also want a good Perl 6 specification.
>  
>
I agree.

On the other hand, I would be very happy if current implementations 
could pass 25% of the current specification.

>And different implementations help to explore different part of the specs.
>That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other
>implementations and are therfore much stable and really implementable.
>  
>
How about sponsoring some implementations, but give "special attention" 
to the most promising one?

>If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers large
>parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost pugs
>development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.
>And I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.
>  
>
I don't know Haskell and the structure of Pugs so I cannot comment on 
that - however, I have some doubts. And speed *is* important: I don't 
think we can expect people to start using Perl6 if it runs even 2x 
slower than Perl5. If Pugs was really up-to-date (I mean: feature 
complete), only slow, I would probably use it to learn Perl6, because 
Perl6 is just lovely. I would not build something on it, though.

>So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?
>  
>
IMHO people like the idea of Parrot. It just.. makes sense. It's been 
around for quite a while. There are releases every month or so. There is 
a mod_parrot. These things.

>>Surely it is very nice to have many implementations (we have seen how
>>much helpful the Pugs project was to help Perl6, for example), but could
>>that happen (or: be sponsored) *after* we have *one* that is fairly
>>complete?? After some time, one imlementations will emerge and become
>>*the* implementations anyway.
>>    
>>
>
>Oh will it? Just like we have one C implementation? Or one Forth
>implementation? Or one Lisp implementation?
>  
>
Can we add PHP and Perl5 to the list? ;)

>>What I would like to add is that IMHO this time implementators should be
>>sponsored. That is: those who hack and those who answer their questions
>>on how to hack. :)
>>    
>>
>
>Aye.
>And perhaps the ones who write the specs, if they want/need it.
>  
>
I meant that, too.

>>I also think that different Perl groups all around the world could be
>>responsive. Let's contact the gazillion perl lists and say: "...if you
>>like Perl, please give $10 to the \"Let's have Perl6 now!\" foundation!"
>>I would, and I will personally send anyone to /dev/null who would not! :)
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
>perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.
>  
>
I guess I have more trust in people than you do. :)

I know that the company I work for would never give a dime to any 
foundations, but I would. And I *own* that company :) That's because a 
company is always a business, but a person can be an enthusiast.

Anyway: I don't know anything about fundraising, so maybe I shouldn't 
say a thing... I just say it might worth a try. People would help to 
convince other people. Once again: I would.

>My idea would be to ask big companies that use perl (for example amazon)
>if they would sponsor some of the development.
>
>Are there other organisations that routinely sponsor open source software?
>  
>
Can't we just go to Google and say we will use Yahoo if they don't give 
us some money? :) And if they don't, we tell everyone! ;)

How about just looking at the sponsor logo-s on the webpages of 
different OS conferences? There should be plenty, and could give some 
ideas. (But there really should be something you can *show* to them. I 
mean at least *one* webpage on Perl6 which is not outdated :) ) YAPC 
organizers should have some ideas, too.

- Fagzal

0
concept
2/21/2008 11:51:52 AM
moritz@casella.faui2k3.org skribis 2008-02-21  9:38 (+0100):
> 1) Let The Perl Foundation decide what to do with the money
> advantage: they already have a comitee (is that really an advantage? ;-)
> disadvantage: they seem to think that Perl 6 on Parrot is _the_ and the
> only way to go. (There's nothing wrong with rakudo and parrot, but Perl 6
> is, by definition, a language. And it should have multiple
> implementations)

I would very strongly prefer to see a focussed effort towards a single
full implementation.

There are many important benefits to having several implementations,
including fun and education. But commercially and marketing-wise, it's
better to first assemble something that *works*, then to optimize its
performance. In terms of priority, the compatible alternative
implementation should come third, not first. It would be unwise to fund
multiple implementation projects, and raising those funds would be
unnecessarily hard.

Many people feel that Perl 6 is going nowhere. Best thing the community
can do, is to show them that Perl 6 is getting somewhere. Every
destination is most quickly reached by travelling in a straight line.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  <#####@juerd.nl>  <http://juerd.nl/sig>
  Convolution:     ICT solutions and consultancy <sales@convolution.nl>
0
juerd
2/21/2008 12:07:14 PM
>>>Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Let's ask the other way round: Is this the time for only one
>>implementation? And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?
>>
>>What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely, but
>>possible).
>>
>>
> Let's give some $$$ to say 3 implementations, see what they come up in a
> month. Lets mupltiply their 1/CPU-time with #of tests passed :), and the
> winner gets the rest of the money.

It's a nice idea, although it ignores development speed nearly completely.

>>And different implementations help to explore different part of the
>> specs.
>>That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other
>>implementations and are therfore much stable and really implementable.
>>
>>
> How about sponsoring some implementations, but give "special attention"
> to the most promising one?

Sounds good.

>>If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers large
>>parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost pugs
>>development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.
>>And I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.
>>
>>
> I don't know Haskell and the structure of Pugs so I cannot comment on
> that - however, I have some doubts.

Same here, but I know that pugs is compiler.
Which means that the generated code can be optimized, but it's hard to
decrease the compilation time.

There is another reason why pugs won't make everyone happy: portability.
Try to amke GHC run on anything but linux and windows (and perhaps a few
*BSDs), and you'll see what I mean ;-)

>>So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?
>>
>>
> IMHO people like the idea of Parrot. It just.. makes sense. It's been
> around for quite a while. There are releases every month or so. There is
> a mod_parrot. These things.

You got a point there.

>>>Surely it is very nice to have many implementations (we have seen how
>>>much helpful the Pugs project was to help Perl6, for example), but could
>>>that happen (or: be sponsored) *after* we have *one* that is fairly
>>>complete?? After some time, one imlementations will emerge and become
>>>*the* implementations anyway.
>>>
>>
>>Oh will it? Just like we have one C implementation? Or one Forth
>>implementation? Or one Lisp implementation?
>>
> Can we add PHP and Perl5 to the list? ;)

I hope you understood the irony;-) : There are many C compilers, many lisp
compilers etc., but only one perl5.

>>My idea would be to ask big companies that use perl (for example amazon)
>>if they would sponsor some of the development.
>>
>>Are there other organisations that routinely sponsor open source
>> software?
>>
>>
> Can't we just go to Google and say we will use Yahoo if they don't give
> us some money? :) And if they don't, we tell everyone! ;)

;-)

> How about just looking at the sponsor logo-s on the webpages of
> different OS conferences? There should be plenty, and could give some
> ideas.

Good idea.

> (But there really should be something you can *show* to them. I
> mean at least *one* webpage on Perl6 which is not outdated :) )

I tried to update dev.perl6.org, and I got read access to the svn repository.
So I sent patches by email - and that's it. No further response from the
webmasters. And the patches haven't been applied.

Anybody knows whom I have to poke? webmasterm at perl.org didn't prove
very responsive :(

Cheers,
Moritz

0
moritz
2/21/2008 12:18:31 PM
>>I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
>>perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.
>>
>>
> I guess I have more trust in people than you do. :)

.... and I just learned that my opions are biased.

Last week I visited the German Perl Workshop, and heard many Perl 6
critical statements.
Now I learned that in general the Germans are rather biased against Perl
6, while other parts of the community are much more open.

Let's hope that you are right with your trust ;-)

Moritz

0
moritz
2/21/2008 12:28:42 PM
> (Someone wrote:)
> > And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?

It is the original plan to implement Perl 6 on Parrot, and the project
that gets most developer attention.

> > What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely,
> > but possible).

Then backtracking would happen, or more likely: Perl 6 would die. If
this community cannot come up with a virtual machine that can handle
Perl 6, then many people will lose all hope.

But as indicated, this scenario is very unlikely.

> Let's give some $$$ to say 3 implementations, see what they come up in
> a month. Lets mupltiply their 1/CPU-time with #of tests passed :), and
> the winner gets the rest of the money.

I do not think a *contest* would be in the best interest of Perl 6.

> > And different implementations help to explore different part of the
> > specs.

Yes, they help. But it's not necessary.

> > That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other
> > implementations and are therfore much stable and really
> > implementable.

If something turns out to be un-implementable, they will find out
regardless of the existence of other implementations. However, I do have
a lot of faith in Larry Wall's language design skills, and think that
this is a very minor, even hypothetical issue.

> > If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers
> > large parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost
> > pugs development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.  And
> > I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.

If sufficient people were fond of hacking on its Haskell guts, then
probably we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it appears that
most volunteers consider Pugs a very useful exploration project (that
would have been used for bootstrapping if development hadn't stalled),
but see Rakudo as the beginning of a feasible real world Perl 6
implementation.

> > So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?

It shows progress, and several well known, trusted and skilled hackers
work on it.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  <#####@juerd.nl>  <http://juerd.nl/sig>
  Convolution:     ICT solutions and consultancy <sales@convolution.nl>
0
juerd
2/21/2008 12:29:05 PM
------=_Part_8552_18401803.1203600070133
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 21/02/2008, Juerd Waalboer <juerd@convolution.nl> wrote:
>
> > (Someone wrote:)
>
> > > And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?
>
>
> It is the original plan to implement Perl 6 on Parrot, and the project
> that gets most developer attention.
>
>
> > > What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely,
> > > but possible).
>
>
> Then backtracking would happen, or more likely: Perl 6 would die. If
> this community cannot come up with a virtual machine that can handle
> Perl 6, then many people will lose all hope.
>
> But as indicated, this scenario is very unlikely.
>
>
> > Let's give some $$$ to say 3 implementations, see what they come up in
> > a month. Lets mupltiply their 1/CPU-time with #of tests passed :), and
> > the winner gets the rest of the money.
>
>
> I do not think a *contest* would be in the best interest of Perl 6.
>
>
> > > And different implementations help to explore different part of the
> > > specs.
>
>
> Yes, they help. But it's not necessary.
>
>
> > > That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other
> > > implementations and are therfore much stable and really
> > > implementable.
>
>
> If something turns out to be un-implementable, they will find out
> regardless of the existence of other implementations. However, I do have
> a lot of faith in Larry Wall's language design skills, and think that
> this is a very minor, even hypothetical issue.
>
>
> > > If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers
> > > large parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost
> > > pugs development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.  And
> > > I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.
>
>
> If sufficient people were fond of hacking on its Haskell guts, then
> probably we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it appears that
> most volunteers consider Pugs a very useful exploration project (that
> would have been used for bootstrapping if development hadn't stalled),
> but see Rakudo as the beginning of a feasible real world Perl 6
> implementation.


I have been hacking a bit on Pugs lately and I don't really believe it can
easily be made fast enough. Still, I think it would be very valuable to
continue work on Pugs to have a complete implementation of the spec, even if
it's not fast.
OTOH, it is certainly possible to expand Pugs' PIR backend, I have been
doing just that and the results are quite encouraging.

> > So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?
>
>
> It shows progress, and several well known, trusted and skilled hackers
> work on it.
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,
>
>   Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  <#####@juerd.nl>  <http://juerd.nl/sig>
>   Convolution:     ICT solutions and consultancy <sales@convolution.nl>
>

Best regards,

Wim

-- 
If it's pointless, what's the point?
If there is a point to it, what's the point?
(Tibor Fischer, "The Thought Gang")

------=_Part_8552_18401803.1203600070133--
0
wim
2/21/2008 1:21:10 PM
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:14:13 +0100 (CET) moritz@casella.faui2k3.org wrote:

> If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers large
> parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost pugs
> development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.
> And I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.
> 
> So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?

Hi,

besides the speed/performance, one should also consider the (intended)
portability of Parrot here. As you may know, a goal of Parrot is to run
on _all_ the platforms Perl ever ran. GHC and its Haskell runtime is not
as ubiquitous as a 'working' C compiler.

Best regards,

norbi
0
norbi
2/21/2008 1:57:26 PM
moritz@casella.faui2k3.org wrote:
>>> I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
>>> perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I have more trust in people than you do. :)
> 
> ... and I just learned that my opions are biased.
> 
> Last week I visited the German Perl Workshop, and heard many Perl 6
> critical statements.
> Now I learned that in general the Germans are rather biased against Perl
> 6, while other parts of the community are much more open.

I was there at the workshop too. You cannot count me in into being biased
against Perl 6. Only biased that it takes so long :-).

Regards
         Racke



-- 
LinuXia Systems => http://www.linuxia.de/
Expert Interchange Consulting and System Administration
ICDEVGROUP => http://www.icdevgroup.org/
Interchange Development Team

0
racke
2/21/2008 2:08:15 PM
racke@linuxia.de wrote:
> moritz@casella.faui2k3.org wrote:
>>>> I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
>>>> perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I guess I have more trust in people than you do. :)
>>
>> ... and I just learned that my opions are biased.
>>
>> Last week I visited the German Perl Workshop, and heard many Perl 6
>> critical statements.
>> Now I learned that in general the Germans are rather biased against Perl
>> 6, while other parts of the community are much more open.
>
> I was there at the workshop too. You cannot count me in into being biased
> against Perl 6. Only biased that it takes so long :-).

I know, and there were some others (like Herbert aka lichtkind, who writes
and maintains the German Perl 6 wiki pages) with the same opinions.

But the general atmosphere there was rather anti Perl 6, and the recent
discussions on the wsinfo mailing lists show that all too clearly.

Cheers,
Moritz

0
moritz
2/21/2008 2:16:55 PM
------=_Part_5258_25977184.1203603942539
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Conrad Schneiker <
conrad.schneiker@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've repeatedly encountered remarks about how much Perl 6
> development is constrained by the fairly severe time and
> energy constraints of its overwhelmingly volunteer
> development team.


Here is something to consider.  Unless we can afford to fund an individual
full time with enough money for them to pay for their own health coverage
and other benefits, the amount of time they are volunteering is already as
much as they can afford.  In other words, they still have to work a regular
job and make time for their family (or whatever substitutes for the real
world) and giving them money isn't going to equate to them being able to
devote to more time.  That isn't to say that these volunteers don't deserve
to get compensated but it is unrealistic to expect that money will equate to
more time in many of the cases.

The statement above does not apply to everyone and those who do freelance
and consulting work could likely devote a great deal more time if they would
be compensated in some way for their time.

I myself, with a few others, made a failed attempt at funding Audrey to work
on Pugs full time and her rate was ridiculously low - $100 USD/day.



>
> So over the next few months, I'm planning to learn about
> fundraising, and see what I can accomplish on behalf of Perl
> 6 development. To that end, I'm soliciting:
> (1) your suggestions for preparation,
> (2) your ideas for proposals, and
> (3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
>    and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
>    extremely leveraged causes (technically, economically,
>    and socially).
>

I am mostly ignoring the rest of what others have said in this thread
because I think it is detracting from your intention of getting money to
people to work more.  Here is one thing that has frustrated me about TPF.
They are a non-profit organization.  Yeah, kind of suprising that would be
the frustrating thing.  The issue is that they can't take money from Bob to
give to Sue to work on Bob's widget.  This is an extreme oversimplification
but in general, they have to abide by the rules that allow them to keep
their non-profit status.  Where am I going with this?

Regardless if we use TPF or not, I think what will get more people to
contribute is having some say as to where there money goes.  To that end, I
suggest having a list of projects currently being funded.  A donator can
choose which fund their money goes to or can choose a general fund if they
don't care.  I don't suggest these projects be generic and nebulous either
(though they could be for the same reason a general fund is).  In other
words, there might be a Rakudo fund - generic.  There might also be a fund
to fix RT # 31415 which is a Rakudo bug.

I am not suggesting this is the solution to all the problems.  It likely
will create more.  What I can tell you is the number one thing that has
prevented me from donating a lot more money is having little to no control
over where it went.  Actually, it has been years since I have contributed to
TPF.  Now, I just write a check to the individual(s) I want to help.  I
don't get the tax write off but I know where my money is going.

In closing, what we don't need is something to fight over.  Hopefully you
will find the sweet spot - I sure hope you do.

Cheers,
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.a. Limbic~Region

------=_Part_5258_25977184.1203603942539--
0
joshua
2/21/2008 2:25:42 PM
[...]

>>I was there at the workshop too. You cannot count me in into being biased
>>against Perl 6. Only biased that it takes so long :-).
>>    
>>
>
>I know, and there were some others (like Herbert aka lichtkind, who writes
>and maintains the German Perl 6 wiki pages) with the same opinions.
>
>But the general atmosphere there was rather anti Perl 6, and the recent
>discussions on the wsinfo mailing lists show that all too clearly.
>  
>
It's really not a surprise. Perl5 is not "broken": IMHO many Perl5 programmers just wanted some "little" (erm...) things like a less hacky OO implementation, better function parameters and types, things like that. Perl6 promised these and much-much more, so people were happy. There were news, ideas, Parrot hacking, etc... and people got bored. Basically nothing happend for *years*. That is: many things happened, there is a nice specification now, brilliant features, etc., you all know - but for Average Perl Joe, there is just nothing there. Average Perl Joe needs this:

perl6 hello_world.pl

That's why I am rooting for rakudo: there is progress, or so I figure, and I can "ln -s rakudo perl6" anytime :) Once you can point people to some targzipped source or an RPM or something like that, and 10 minutes later they can indeed write the above line, they will not be anti-Perl6 anymore. (I mean if they will be anti-Perl6 after that, then we can just close this list and everyone can just go home.)

- Fagzal

0
concept
2/21/2008 3:43:49 PM
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:29:05PM +0100, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
: Then backtracking would happen, or more likely: Perl 6 would die. If
: this community cannot come up with a virtual machine that can handle
: Perl 6, then many people will lose all hope.

Except that the people working on alternatives to parrot are already
doing that exploration in parallel, and therefore would have no
change in attitude.  When it comes to exploration, it doesn't really
matter how many people lose hope--it only matters how many people
keep hope.  :)

: But as indicated, this scenario is very unlikely.
: 
: > Let's give some $$$ to say 3 implementations, see what they come up in
: > a month. Lets mupltiply their 1/CPU-time with #of tests passed :), and
: > the winner gets the rest of the money.
: 
: I do not think a *contest* would be in the best interest of Perl 6.

It's already a friendly competition.  To the extent that it is perceived
as a zero-sum game, we'd lose the friendliness, I fear.

: > > And different implementations help to explore different part of the
: > > specs.
: 
: Yes, they help. But it's not necessary.

I respectfully disagree with your definition of "necessary". :)

: > > That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other
: > > implementations and are therfore much stable and really
: > > implementable.
: 
: If something turns out to be un-implementable, they will find out
: regardless of the existence of other implementations. However, I do have
: a lot of faith in Larry Wall's language design skills, and think that
: this is a very minor, even hypothetical issue.

The trouble is, I have no visibility into the assumptions made in
the parrot core that might cause problems later.  And certainly
the initial design of parrot was aimed more at a "faster Perl 5"
than at Perl 6 as we know it now.

My knowledge of implementability is primarily at a more abstract level,
and cannot easily be brought to bear on any particular implementation.
I was already told at the beginning of Perl 6 that nobody wanted my
implementation skills.  :)

: > > If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers
: > > large parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost
: > > pugs development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.  And
: > > I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.
: 
: If sufficient people were fond of hacking on its Haskell guts, then
: probably we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it appears that
: most volunteers consider Pugs a very useful exploration project (that
: would have been used for bootstrapping if development hadn't stalled),
: but see Rakudo as the beginning of a feasible real world Perl 6
: implementation.

Yes, as Wim pointed out, pugs really wasn't fast enough to be a real
implementation, and the hope that supersmart Haskell optimizers would
fix everything didn't really pan out, nor the hope that Perl programmers
would flock to learning Haskell in droves.  As a case in point, I have
two programs that translate STD.pm to versions of Perl that can run
on pugs and on Perl 5.  The pugs compiler takes about 2 minutes to
compile the results, and flakes out half the time for no apparent
reason.  The Perl 5 compiler takes about half a second, and blows up
reproducably.  :)

: > > So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?
: 
: It shows progress, and several well known, trusted and skilled hackers
: work on it.

As do other efforts.  They're just differently skilled, differently well
known, and differently trusted.

Larry
0
larry
2/21/2008 7:15:47 PM
Larry Wall skribis 2008-02-21 11:15 (-0800):
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:29:05PM +0100, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
> : Then backtracking would happen, or more likely: Perl 6 would die. If
> : this community cannot come up with a virtual machine that can handle
> : Perl 6, then many people will lose all hope.
> Except that the people working on alternatives to parrot are already
> doing that exploration in parallel, and therefore would have no
> change in attitude.

Oh, but I would certainly not want to discourage them.

For $$$-funding, however, I think it is not practical to pursue multiple
approaches simultaneously.

> : I do not think a *contest* would be in the best interest of Perl 6.
> It's already a friendly competition.  To the extent that it is perceived
> as a zero-sum game, we'd lose the friendliness, I fear.

Friendly competition is good, but projects competing to win a grant
might hurt all of the projects severely, as well as the social structure
that joins the projects in the larger Perl 6 community.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  <#####@juerd.nl>  <http://juerd.nl/sig>
  Convolution:     ICT solutions and consultancy <sales@convolution.nl>
0
juerd
2/21/2008 7:40:17 PM
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:07:14PM +0100, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
: I would very strongly prefer to see a focussed effort towards a single
: full implementation.
: 
: There are many important benefits to having several implementations,
: including fun and education. But commercially and marketing-wise, it's
: better to first assemble something that *works*, then to optimize its
: performance.

Hmm, indeed, you just named one of the things that pugs did better than
parrot.

: In terms of priority, the compatible alternative
: implementation should come third, not first. It would be unwise to fund
: multiple implementation projects, and raising those funds would be
: unnecessarily hard.

Well, given that we can't even raise funds for the first project very
well, it's a bit premature to be playing zero-sum games.

: Many people feel that Perl 6 is going nowhere. Best thing the community
: can do, is to show them that Perl 6 is getting somewhere.

Again, that was a really good argument for pugs, which among other
things *renewed* excitement in parrot.  But pugs also demonstrated some
difficulties with that approach.  The fact is that every approach has
run into almost insurmountable difficulties from time to time, and it's
only brute determination that keeps most of us going most of the time,
regardless of which project we're working on.

: Every destination is most quickly reached by travelling in a straight line.

I suppose such a platitude is natural for a "plat"-lander, as long as
you don't mind swimming a few canals from time to time.  Certainly it
seems to have been a good argument for the armies that regularly
march through your neighborhood...  :)

But around where I live, just because you can see the top of a mountain
doesn't mean you can get there easily.  Most often, a straight-line
march will leave you with a deadly amount of either air or water
under you.  You're lucky if you only end up with a sheer rock face
in front of you.  The West was explored primarily by mountain men
who lived off the land trapping furs, not by the railroad companies.
You're arguing for the railroad company to do the exploration, but I
think we also desperately need to find somebody who is interested in
buying furs from those people who do not like to go in straight lines.

As they say, the map is not the territory.  And the terrain is just a small
part of the geography.  Geography is a subtle destiny, when it's not
being obvious.

Not every design decision is as obvious as the Panama Canal, and even
that took two tries.

And it's still not a straight line...where's Paul Bunyan when you need
him?

Larry
0
larry
2/21/2008 7:42:51 PM
Larry Wall skribis 2008-02-21 11:42 (-0800):
> : There are many important benefits to having several implementations,
> : including fun and education. But commercially and marketing-wise, it's
> : better to first assemble something that *works*, then to optimize its
> : performance.
> Hmm, indeed, you just named one of the things that pugs did better than
> parrot.

For different values of working. Certainly if Pugs would still be
actively developed, I would suggest funding that path, and not the
Rakudo path.

Not hindered by knowledge of Haskell, I expected Pugs to be optimizable
to workable performance, at least for bootstrapping Perl 6 to a
parrot based Perl-6-written-in-Perl-6.

> : In terms of priority, the compatible alternative
> : implementation should come third, not first. It would be unwise to fund
> : multiple implementation projects, and raising those funds would be
> : unnecessarily hard.
> Well, given that we can't even raise funds for the first project very
> well, it's a bit premature to be playing zero-sum games.

Can't we? There's little evidence of attempts. I don't know if it has
been tried before, but if Conrad thinks he's got a chance, I hope he
seriously goes for it.

> : Many people feel that Perl 6 is going nowhere. Best thing the community
> : can do, is to show them that Perl 6 is getting somewhere.
> Again, that was a really good argument for pugs, which among other
> things *renewed* excitement in parrot.

Absolutely!

Neither Perl 6 nor Parrot nor the other implementations would have been
where they are now if we hadn't had Pugs.

> But around where I live, just because you can see the top of a mountain
> doesn't mean you can get there easily.

Good point. My Dutch-biased self doesn't have that wisdom :)
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  <#####@juerd.nl>  <http://juerd.nl/sig>
  Convolution:     ICT solutions and consultancy <sales@convolution.nl>
0
juerd
2/21/2008 7:52:30 PM
On Feb 21, 2008, at 14:42 , Larry Wall wrote:

> Again, that was a really good argument for pugs, which among other
> things *renewed* excitement in parrot.  But pugs also demonstrated  
> some
> difficulties with that approach.  The fact is that every approach has
> run into almost insurmountable difficulties from time to time, and  
> it's
> only brute determination that keeps most of us going most of the time,
> regardless of which project we're working on.

Note also that the problems with Pugs aren't necessarily problems  
with Haskell, but with Pugs' way of using it.  The real roadblock  
with Pugs is that Audrey Tang was the only one who really understood  
it. (I'm still not good enough with Haskell to try to do a Perl6  
implementation in it, although I know it well enough to believe that  
it *can* be done... just not quite the way Pugs does it.)

-- 
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery@kf8nh.com
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university    KF8NH


0
allbery
2/21/2008 8:11:20 PM
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:

> Here is something to consider. =C2=A0Unless we can afford to fund an indi=
vidual
> full time with enough money for them to pay for their own health coverage
> and other benefits, the amount of time they are volunteering is already as
> much as they can afford. =C2=A0In other words, they still have to work a =
regular
> job and make time for their family (or whatever substitutes for the real
> world) and giving them money isn't going to equate to them being able to
> devote to more time. =C2=A0That isn't to say that these volunteers don't =
deserve
> to get compensated but it is unrealistic to expect that money will equate
> to more time in many of the cases.

I could take a month's sabbatical from my day job for $5000 without losing=
=20
insurance coverage or other benefits.  That's slightly more than Audrey's=20
$100/day, I know, but it's substantially less than my consulting rate and=20
somewhat less than my salary too.  I could probably make 100 - 150=20
high-quality commits to Parrot in that 30 day period.  Perhaps more.

I'm probably not the only Parrot/Perl 6 hacker in this situation.

=2D- c
0
chromatic
2/21/2008 9:23:43 PM
------=_Part_7189_3310696.1203637547628
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
>
> I could take a month's sabbatical from my day job for $5000 without losing
> insurance coverage or other benefits.  That's slightly more than Audrey's
> $100/day, I know, but it's substantially less than my consulting rate and
> somewhat less than my salary too.  I could probably make 100 - 150
> high-quality commits to Parrot in that 30 day period.  Perhaps more.
>
> I'm probably not the only Parrot/Perl 6 hacker in this situation.
>

I was beginning to wonder if my post to the thread had gotten eaten.  Thanks
for replying.  I probably didn't do a good job of tying the two portions of
my reply together, but if I were to go to the donation page and I saw

Project:  Allow chromatic for 1 month to work exclusively on parrot
Deliverables (if applicable):  100 - 150 high quality commits
Required:  $5000
Current:  $0

I would be very inclined to make a donation.  In fact, if you can find 9
other people willing to do so - I will cut a check for $500 any time you are
ready.  That's besides the point.

I don't believe "just getting more money" is the solution.  I think we need
to do a number of things:

1.  Identify people, like you, who are in a position to trade time for money
and the projects they will work on
2.  Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that's what they
want to do)
3.  Do it in a way that causes the least amount of fighting


-- c
>

Cheers,
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.a. Limbic~Region

------=_Part_7189_3310696.1203637547628--
0
joshua
2/21/2008 11:45:47 PM
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 18:45 -0500, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org> wrote:
> 2.  Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that's what they
> want to do)


Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that this can't be done
directly because of rules surrounding TPF's non-profit status.  Someone
else pointed out the problems with TPF officers benefitting directly
from the donations, even though some of the current and former TPF
officers would be great candidates for support.

Which made me think ... wasn't this why Mozilla created a corporation?
Personally, I think it's ridiculous that a non-profit can't be an
umbrella facilitator for directed donations (if that is in fact the
case).  But if that is really the way of things, can TPF go the Mozilla
route to break the logjam?  Tax incentives are great, but having piles
of money sitting around not getting to hackers is clearly not working
for us.


-'f


0
geoff
2/22/2008 1:19:31 AM
------=_Part_7511_21129932.1203644830153
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <geoff@broadwell.org>
wrote:

>
>
> Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that this can't be done
> directly because of rules surrounding TPF's non-profit status.


That someone was me and that's not what I said.  I said it isn't as simple
as Bob saying I want to pay Sue to work on this widget and having TPF broker
the deal.  I won't pretend to understand all the intricacies.  I said it is
frustrating, as someone willing to donate money, that I can't just say give
it to Sue please.


> case).  But if that is really the way of things, can TPF go the Mozilla
> route to break the logjam?  Tax incentives are great, but having piles
> of money sitting around not getting to hackers is clearly not working
> for us.
>

There are grants that are being awarded.  Those grants are getting things
done (thanks for the progress on the PDDs Al).  I am in no way suggesting
that people not donate to TPF.  I have in the past and I might in the
future.  I also help them out in other ways, by writing code for small
projects that they need done.

I am only suggesting that, for the specific purposes of this thread, going
the TPF route may not be the most efficient way to accomplish that goal.

Cheers,
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.a. Limbic~Region

------=_Part_7511_21129932.1203644830153--
0
joshua
2/22/2008 1:47:10 AM
In my $life, I raise money from sponsors.

It is not difficult to spend money, once you have it.
It is not difficult to raise money, once you know how to spend it wisely.

What's difficult is putting the two together.

Some donors know what to contribute to - they choose specific projects 
and people.
Some donors want to help achieve a general aim - they give to a 
foundation that will wisely spend the money for them (eg. Warren Buffet 
giving gazillions to Bill Gate's foundation).
Any sponsorship program should enable both ear-marked and general 
contributions (and I am certain if the paper-work's done right, this can 
be achieved within TPF).

To be frank, the ONLY reasonable systematic way of managing a 
sponsorship process is to have a Foundation, and the foundation should 
have people who are trusted, who already have contributed to the 
process, and who are prepared to report back on how the money has been 
spent. The Perl Foundation meets these criteria.

If you spend time on administration, you are using resources, in just 
the same way as programmers hacking on the code. So if the officers of 
the Foundation are paid for their efforts, that is acceptible so long as 
the payments are commensurate with resources spent in other directions. 
It is not a mathematical formula, its a question of balance and fairness 
and transparency.

No one likes bureacracy. But I feel much happier about handing over 
money, or persuading someone else to hand over money, to a group of 
people with established procedures and collective responsibility, than 
to some enthusiatic individual who promises the earth and whose the 
world-number-one genius at code writing, but might also go and blow the 
whole lot on girls and booze cos his cat died.

Whilst debating issues like parrot vs pugs, or single-track vs parellel 
track development, can be quite interesting, especially if it induces 
Larry to compare straight lines to mountains and railroads, it is likely 
to be more useful to have suggestions like chromatic's - 1month of 
dedicated work for $5000.

How about adding a page to one of the web sites where offers of help, 
time and expense, can be made?

The micro-grants idea is great. What I have seen of the results and 
reporting is fine. More grants, more people, and more results are 
needed. How about everyone reading this thread thinking about a 
micro-project they can do.

Finally, there needs to be recognition for the sponsors, both those that 
donate their talent resources such as volunteer designer, implementors, 
& hackers, and those that donate just cash.

How about a mandatory section of text at the top of each core and 
sponsored module that lists the sponsors? Just like license text. That 
way all contributors are recognised when/if perl6 becomes the 
predominant programming environment, those names become distributed 
around the world.

0
richard
2/22/2008 8:03:03 AM
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org> wrote:
>=20
> I could take a month's sabbatical from my day job for $5000 without =
losing
> insurance coverage or other benefits.  That's slightly more than =
Audrey's
> $100/day, I know, but it's substantially less than my consulting rate =
and
> somewhat less than my salary too.  I could probably make 100 - 150
> high-quality commits to Parrot in that 30 day period.  Perhaps more.
>=20
> I'm probably not the only Parrot/Perl 6 hacker in this situation.
>=20
> > I was beginning to wonder if my post to the thread had gotten
> > eaten.  Thanks for replying.  I probably didn't do a good job of
> > tying the two portions of my reply together, but if I were to go
> > to the donation page and I saw
> >=20
> > Project:  Allow chromatic for 1 month to work exclusively on parrot
> > Deliverables (if applicable):  100 - 150 high quality commits
> > Required:  $5000
> > Current:  $0
> >=20
> > I would be very inclined to make a donation.  In fact, if you can
> > find 9 other people willing to do so - I will cut a check for
> > $500 any time you are ready.  That's besides the point.

Not to me it isn't. :-)=20

Count me in as person #1 of the 9 others.
=20
> > I don't believe "just getting more money" is the solution.  I
> > think we need to do a number of things:
> >=20
> > 1.  Identify people, like you, who are in a position to trade
> > time for money and the projects they will work on=20
> > 2.  Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that's what
they
> > want to do)=20
> > 3.  Do it in a way that causes the least amount of fighting

Good ideas.

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker

www.AthenaLab.com

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6=A0 =97 Official Perl 6 Wiki
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot =97 Official Parrot Wiki


0
conrad
2/22/2008 8:21:38 AM
> Whilst debating issues like parrot vs pugs, or single-track vs parellel
> track development, can be quite interesting, especially if it induces
> Larry to compare straight lines to mountains and railroads, it is likely
> to be more useful to have suggestions like chromatic's - 1month of
> dedicated work for $5000.
>
> How about adding a page to one of the web sites where offers of help,
> time and expense, can be made?

Very good idea.

Any takers?

I would, but my internet connectivity is severely constrained atm.
That will change from April 15th on, if noone made it until then, I'll do.
But it would be shame to wait that long ;-)

Cheers,
Moritz

0
moritz
2/22/2008 8:23:32 AM
Me too. $500. That's 3*500, so far.

Can I do this through the Perl Foundation as an earmark?

Conrad Schneiker wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>  =20
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org> wrote:
>>
>> I could take a month's sabbatical from my day job for $5000 without lo=
sing
>> insurance coverage or other benefits.  That's slightly more than Audre=
y's
>> $100/day, I know, but it's substantially less than my consulting rate =
and
>> somewhat less than my salary too.  I could probably make 100 - 150
>> high-quality commits to Parrot in that 30 day period.  Perhaps more.
>>
>> I'm probably not the only Parrot/Perl 6 hacker in this situation.
>>
>>    =20
>>> I was beginning to wonder if my post to the thread had gotten
>>> eaten.  Thanks for replying.  I probably didn't do a good job of
>>> tying the two portions of my reply together, but if I were to go
>>> to the donation page and I saw
>>>
>>> Project:  Allow chromatic for 1 month to work exclusively on parrot
>>> Deliverables (if applicable):  100 - 150 high quality commits
>>> Required:  $5000
>>> Current:  $0
>>>
>>> I would be very inclined to make a donation.  In fact, if you can
>>> find 9 other people willing to do so - I will cut a check for
>>> $500 any time you are ready.  That's besides the point.
>>>      =20
>
> Not to me it isn't. :-)=20
>
> Count me in as person #1 of the 9 others.
> =20
>  =20
>>> I don't believe "just getting more money" is the solution.  I
>>> think we need to do a number of things:
>>>
>>> 1.  Identify people, like you, who are in a position to trade
>>> time for money and the projects they will work on=20
>>> 2.  Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that's what
>>>      =20
> they
>  =20
>>> want to do)=20
>>> 3.  Do it in a way that causes the least amount of fighting
>>>      =20
>
> Good ideas.
>
> Best regards,
> Conrad Schneiker
>
> www.AthenaLab.com
>
> http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6  =97 Official Perl 6 Wiki
> http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot =97 Official Parrot Wiki
>
>
>  =20

0
richard
2/22/2008 8:27:52 AM
> From: moritz@casella.faui2k3.org [mailto:moritz@casella.faui2k3.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:24 AM
>=20
> > Whilst debating issues like parrot vs pugs, or single-track vs
> parellel
> > track development, can be quite interesting, especially if it =
induces
> > Larry to compare straight lines to mountains and railroads, it is
> likely
> > to be more useful to have suggestions like chromatic's - 1month of
> > dedicated work for $5000.
> >
> > How about adding a page to one of the web sites where offers of =
help,
> > time and expense, can be made?
>=20
> Very good idea.

++

> Any takers?
>=20
> I would, but my internet connectivity is severely constrained atm.
> That will change from April 15th on, if noone made it until then, I'll
> do.
> But it would be shame to wait that long ;-)

We have the Perl 6 wiki.=20

That might be a good way to set up a preliminary version.

I could help out this weekend, but right now I've got to catch up on
sleep and $work.

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker

www.AthenaLab.com

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6=A0 =97 Official Perl 6 Wiki
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot =97 Official Parrot Wiki


0
conrad
2/22/2008 8:33:06 AM
This thread on p6l should hopefully interest many p6u readers too.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Hainsworth [mailto:richard@rusrating.ru]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:28 AM
> To: Conrad Schneiker; chromatic; p6l
> Subject: Re: Perl 6 fundraising and related topics.
> 
> Me too. $500. That's 3*500, so far.
> 
> Can I do this through the Perl Foundation as an earmark?
> 
> Conrad Schneiker wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I could take a month's sabbatical from my day job for $5000 without
> losing
> >> insurance coverage or other benefits.  That's slightly more than
> Audrey's
> >> $100/day, I know, but it's substantially less than my consulting
> rate and
> >> somewhat less than my salary too.  I could probably make 100 - 150
> >> high-quality commits to Parrot in that 30 day period.  Perhaps more.
> >>
> >> I'm probably not the only Parrot/Perl 6 hacker in this situation.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I was beginning to wonder if my post to the thread had gotten
> >>> eaten.  Thanks for replying.  I probably didn't do a good job of
> >>> tying the two portions of my reply together, but if I were to go
> >>> to the donation page and I saw
> >>>
> >>> Project:  Allow chromatic for 1 month to work exclusively on parrot
> >>> Deliverables (if applicable):  100 - 150 high quality commits
> >>> Required:  $5000
> >>> Current:  $0
> >>>
> >>> I would be very inclined to make a donation.  In fact, if you can
> >>> find 9 other people willing to do so - I will cut a check for
> >>> $500 any time you are ready.  That's besides the point.
> >>>
> >
> > Not to me it isn't. :-)
> >
> > Count me in as person #1 of the 9 others.
> >
> >
> >>> I don't believe "just getting more money" is the solution.  I
> >>> think we need to do a number of things:
> >>>
> >>> 1.  Identify people, like you, who are in a position to trade
> >>> time for money and the projects they will work on
> >>> 2.  Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that's
> what
> >>>
> > they
> >
> >>> want to do)
> >>> 3.  Do it in a way that causes the least amount of fighting
> >>>
> >
> > Good ideas.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Conrad Schneiker
> >
> > www.AthenaLab.com
> >
> > http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6  - Official Perl 6 Wiki
> > http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot - Official Parrot Wiki
> >
> >
> >

0
conrad
2/22/2008 8:44:35 AM
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03:03AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> No one likes bureacracy. But I feel much happier about handing over money, 
> or persuading someone else to hand over money, to a group of people with 
> established procedures and collective responsibility, than to some 
> enthusiatic individual who promises the earth and whose the 
> world-number-one genius at code writing, but might also go and blow the 
> whole lot on girls and booze cos his cat died.

Let me make a clear statement here.  I have no trouble with the
committee making its decisions--that's what the committee is obliged
to do.  The committee is *not* obliged to feel secure about that;
(nor do I feel obliged to allow them to feel secure about that ;) 
nevertheless, the committee is also not obliged to demonstrate its
insecurity by heaping scorn upon such persons of indeterminate feline
attachment while turning them down.  A simple "no" would suffice
without the we-had-to-say-this-because-you-suck bits.

By the way, it's possible that I might deserve a little more money,
because *my* cat died last year, and as near as I can tell, I didn't
spend any money on girls and booze because of it...  :)

Larry
0
larry
2/22/2008 9:20:27 AM
> From: Geoffrey Broadwell [mailto:geoff@broadwell.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:20 PM
>=20
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 18:45 -0500, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org> =
wrote:
> > 2.  Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that's what
> they
> > want to do)
>=20
>=20
> Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that this can't be done
> directly because of rules surrounding TPF's non-profit status.  =
Someone
> else pointed out the problems with TPF officers benefitting directly
> from the donations, even though some of the current and former TPF
> officers would be great candidates for support.
>=20
> Which made me think ... wasn't this why Mozilla created a corporation?
> Personally, I think it's ridiculous that a non-profit can't be an
> umbrella facilitator for directed donations (if that is in fact the
> case).  But if that is really the way of things, can TPF go the =
Mozilla
> route to break the logjam?

Or could we even just go to that Mozilla corporation?

Given that Mozilla is a Perl 6 supporter, would they be willing to =
handle
earmarked Perl 6 donations in lieu of TPF (for a limited time, say 2 =
years)?

Their major name recognition as a solid entity could be very helpful in
attracting major donations prior to Perl 6's first production release.

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker

www.AthenaLab.com

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6=A0 =97 Official Perl 6 Wiki
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot =97 Official Parrot Wiki


0
conrad
2/22/2008 9:51:49 AM
OOOWWW my tail is burnt!!! But I wasnt on the committee... promise.

Sorry about the cat...

So lets get some money into this Foundation, so that, perhaps, Larry 
might possibly, if he deserves, get a little more money.

Richard

Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03:03AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>   
>> No one likes bureacracy. But I feel much happier about handing over money, 
>> or persuading someone else to hand over money, to a group of people with 
>> established procedures and collective responsibility, than to some 
>> enthusiatic individual who promises the earth and whose the 
>> world-number-one genius at code writing, but might also go and blow the 
>> whole lot on girls and booze cos his cat died.
>>     
>
> Let me make a clear statement here.  I have no trouble with the
> committee making its decisions--that's what the committee is obliged
> to do.  The committee is *not* obliged to feel secure about that;
> (nor do I feel obliged to allow them to feel secure about that ;) 
> nevertheless, the committee is also not obliged to demonstrate its
> insecurity by heaping scorn upon such persons of indeterminate feline
> attachment while turning them down.  A simple "no" would suffice
> without the we-had-to-say-this-because-you-suck bits.
>
> By the way, it's possible that I might deserve a little more money,
> because *my* cat died last year, and as near as I can tell, I didn't
> spend any money on girls and booze because of it...  :)
>
> Larry
>   
0
richard
2/22/2008 9:55:47 AM
Qui, 2008-02-21 às 11:15 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
> I was already told at the beginning of Perl 6 that nobody wanted my
> implementation skills.  :)

I really wouldn't mind your implementation skills being used in SMOP ;).

daniel

0
daniel
2/22/2008 10:52:17 AM
------=_Part_254_16076704.1203685367963
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi everyone,

Guess it's time for me to finally join the discussion. :-)  I've been paying
attention to this thread since it started.


> > Which made me think ... wasn't this why Mozilla created a corporation?
>

I believe one can find online write-ups from the people involved with the
decision to create MoCo as to why they felt this was a good idea.  I read
them once years ago.  I would need to re-read to remind myself what those
reasons were.

Or could we even just go to that Mozilla corporation?
>
> Given that Mozilla is a Perl 6 supporter, would they be willing to handle
> earmarked Perl 6 donations in lieu of TPF (for a limited time, say 2
> years)?
>

One of the stated goals and desired outcomes of the MoFo joint sponsorship
with TPF of Patrick Michaud's work was to assist TPF to do more (and more
effective) fundraising for p6.  MoFo's goals in p6 are served by supporting
TPF.  I strongly doubt that they would accept donations for p6 and
distribute them themselves directly.  (I'm in touch with the MoFo executive
director on a weekly basis.  I've got a pretty good idea of where he's at in
his thinking.)


> Their major name recognition as a solid entity could be very helpful in
> attracting major donations prior to Perl 6's first production release.
>

Yes, they appreciate that, which is why they donated to TPF.  They wanted to
endorse TPF and p6 to make it easier for others to do so.

Cheers,
 - Richard Dice
(President of TPF)

------=_Part_254_16076704.1203685367963--
0
rdice
2/22/2008 1:02:47 PM
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:

> Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that this can't be done
> directly because of rules surrounding TPF's non-profit status.  Someone
> else pointed out the problems with TPF officers benefitting directly
> from the donations, even though some of the current and former TPF
> officers would be great candidates for support.
>
> Which made me think ... wasn't this why Mozilla created a corporation?

I doubt that's why. If TPF owned The Perl Corporation (TPC), there'd still 
be serious conflict of interest issues were TPC to be employing TPF board 
members or other officers.

If anything, this would look even _worse_ than giving them grant money 
from TPF!

The main reason a nonprofit would create a for-profit subsidiary is in 
order to engage in business activities outside of that nonprofits 
tax-exempt purpose. That purpose is generally defined by the nonprofit's 
mission. TPF's missions is:

  The Perl Foundation is dedicated to the advancement of the Perl
  programming language through open discussion, collaboration, design, and
  code.

I would guess that MoFo founded MoCo primarily because it wanted to pursue 
income sources that weren't compatible with MoFo's nonprofit status. I'm 
guessing that this was primarily the Google deal, and it was determined 
that the income from Google would be business income, and that it would be 
so much that if it came directly to MoFo it would compromise MoFo's status 
as a 501c3 nonprofit.

I'd guess that the reasoning behind this is that in the Google deal, 
Google gets a benefit from the money it pays. It's not a donation. That 
means it's business income.

TPF is not in a similar position at this time. There is no massive source 
of income available that would not be a donation, to the best of my 
knowledge. If there were such a source, forming a subsidiary for-profit 
corporation would be worthwhile.


-dave

/*===================================================
VegGuide.Org                        www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg.       My book blog
===================================================*/
0
autarch
2/22/2008 5:33:39 PM
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:

> I am mostly ignoring the rest of what others have said in this thread
> because I think it is detracting from your intention of getting money to
> people to work more.  Here is one thing that has frustrated me about TPF.
> They are a non-profit organization.  Yeah, kind of suprising that would be
> the frustrating thing.  The issue is that they can't take money from Bob to
> give to Sue to work on Bob's widget.  This is an extreme oversimplification
> but in general, they have to abide by the rules that allow them to keep
> their non-profit status.  Where am I going with this?

This doesn't make any sense to me. There's nothing about being a nonprofit 
that prevents TPF from accepting donations targeted to a specific program. 
There's a bit of accounting overhead to make it happen, but it's perfectly 
legal and in keeping with TPF's 501c3 status and its mission.

> Regardless if we use TPF or not, I think what will get more people to
> contribute is having some say as to where there money goes.  To that end, I
> suggest having a list of projects currently being funded.  A donator can
> choose which fund their money goes to or can choose a general fund if they
> don't care.  I don't suggest these projects be generic and nebulous either
> (though they could be for the same reason a general fund is).  In other
> words, there might be a Rakudo fund - generic.  There might also be a fund
> to fix RT # 31415 which is a Rakudo bug.

I don't object to the idea of targeted donations, nor of having the 
community be more involved in that targeting. Sounds groovy.

However, I'm not too interested in handing my personal cash over to TPF. 
I've thought about this for a while, and I'm convinced that for a variety 
of reasons, TPF should be working on getting most of its funding from 
corporations. One of the main reasons is simply that there's more bang for 
the fundraising effort. I can't afford to give TPF $5k, but there's many, 
many companies using Perl that could easily give $5k or maybe $50k.

> over where it went.  Actually, it has been years since I have contributed to
> TPF.  Now, I just write a check to the individual(s) I want to help.  I
> don't get the tax write off but I know where my money is going.

I would never do this, because it's not tax-deductible. Also, if you pay 
them enough (>= $2k, I believe) you'll have to file a 1099 form because 
they're now a subcontractor for you ;)

Personally, I really think it's important that any money funding Perl work 
go through TPF. It keeps things tax-deductible _and_ it imposes a higher 
degree of accountability on the process.


-dave

/*===================================================
VegGuide.Org                        www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg.       My book blog
===================================================*/
0
autarch
2/22/2008 5:38:58 PM
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dave Rolsky <autarch@urth.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
>  > I am mostly ignoring the rest of what others have said in this thread
>  > because I think it is detracting from your intention of getting money to
>  > people to work more.  Here is one thing that has frustrated me about TPF.
>  > They are a non-profit organization.  Yeah, kind of suprising that would be
>  > the frustrating thing.  The issue is that they can't take money from Bob to
>  > give to Sue to work on Bob's widget.  This is an extreme oversimplification
>  > but in general, they have to abide by the rules that allow them to keep
>  > their non-profit status.  Where am I going with this?
>
>  This doesn't make any sense to me. There's nothing about being a nonprofit
>  that prevents TPF from accepting donations targeted to a specific program.
>  There's a bit of accounting overhead to make it happen, but it's perfectly
>  legal and in keeping with TPF's 501c3 status and its mission.

I don't know but I think I was told at least once that TPF cannot
handle donations
targeted to a specific person. That might of course be different then targeting
at specific program, I am not familiar what 501c3 means.

Personally - and there might be few others - I'd be much more
comfortable to give
money to a specific target or person than to a general pool.

What I was hoping for a long time is to be able to give a modest amount
on a monthly basis. Currently AFAIK TPF can only accept stand alone payments.

IMHO many people in the community would be ready to give 5-10-20 USD/month but
it would be much harder to get them give 100 or 200 USD once a year.

How hard would it be to enable (Paypal?) recurring monthly payments to TPF?
How hard would it be to allow people to target their money to a
specific project/person?


TPF can then still focus on raising money from corporations.

Gabor


-- 
Gabor Szabo
http://www.szabgab.com/
0
szabgab
2/23/2008 9:03:41 PM
> From: Gabor Szabo [mailto:szabgab@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:04 PM
> 
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dave Rolsky <autarch@urth.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> >
> >  > I am mostly ignoring the rest of what others have said in this
> thread
> >  > because I think it is detracting from your intention of getting
> money to
> >  > people to work more.  Here is one thing that has frustrated me
> about TPF.
> >  > They are a non-profit organization.  Yeah, kind of suprising that
> would be
> >  > the frustrating thing.  The issue is that they can't take money
> from Bob to
> >  > give to Sue to work on Bob's widget.  This is an extreme
> oversimplification
> >  > but in general, they have to abide by the rules that allow them to
> keep
> >  > their non-profit status.  Where am I going with this?
> >
> >  This doesn't make any sense to me. There's nothing about being a
> nonprofit
> >  that prevents TPF from accepting donations targeted to a specific
> program.
> >  There's a bit of accounting overhead to make it happen, but it's
> perfectly
> >  legal and in keeping with TPF's 501c3 status and its mission.
> 
> I don't know but I think I was told at least once that TPF cannot
> handle donations
> targeted to a specific person. That might of course be different then
> targeting
> at specific program, I am not familiar what 501c3 means.
> 
> Personally - and there might be few others - I'd be much more
> comfortable to give
> money to a specific target or person than to a general pool.
> 
> What I was hoping for a long time is to be able to give a modest amount
> on a monthly basis. Currently AFAIK TPF can only accept stand alone
> payments.
> 
> IMHO many people in the community would be ready to give 5-10-20
> USD/month but
> it would be much harder to get them give 100 or 200 USD once a year.
> 
> How hard would it be to enable (Paypal?) recurring monthly payments to
> TPF?
> How hard would it be to allow people to target their money to a
> specific project/person?
> 
> 
> TPF can then still focus on raising money from corporations.

Good ideas/questions. 

TIMTOWTDI.

A couple of quick comments (for everyone):

(1) Richard Dice (TPF) recently left for a week of $work travel and might
not be able to reply for a while, so please be patient and considerate.

(2) Please direct all follow-ups to just the perl6-users list.
My apologies to others with likewise-cluttered in-boxes for neglecting
to request this in my initial post.

Meanwhile, thanks for everyone's suggestions. 

I'm sure that we'll eventually see some major improvements,
one way or another.

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker

www.AthenaLab.com

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6  - Official Perl 6 Wiki
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot - Official Parrot Wiki

0
conrad
2/24/2008 2:45:42 AM
>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes:

  LW> By the way, it's possible that I might deserve a little more money,
  LW> because *my* cat died last year, and as near as I can tell, I didn't
  LW> spend any money on girls and booze because of it...  :)

i will donate to get larry a new cat. in fact we can probably find a
free stray or extra kitten somewhere near him. will this make perl 6
happen before christmas?

:-)

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  ------  uri@stemsystems.com  --------  http://www.sysarch.com --
-----  Perl Architecture, Development, Training, Support, Code Review  ------
-----------  Search or Offer Perl Jobs  ----- http://jobs.perl.org  ---------
---------  Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix  ----  http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
0
uri
2/24/2008 3:59:48 AM
I've started a new Perl 6 wiki page for Perl 6 fundraising and
related topics:

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_donations_and_fundraisi
ng

It's still very preliminary, and it may take another day or two
before I finish collecting stuff from previous discussion threads
that I also plan to include.

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker

www.AthenaLab.com

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6  - Official Perl 6 Wiki
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot - Official Parrot Wiki

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker


0
conrad
2/24/2008 9:46:39 PM
Has anything happened in response to this discussion?

Gabor
0
szabgab
3/7/2008 5:54:51 PM
FYI

This discussion remains on-going. Some of the issues raised require 
investigation to clarify, which takes time.

Richard

Gabor Szabo wrote:
> Has anything happened in response to this discussion?
>
> Gabor
>   
0
richard
3/11/2008 12:03:17 PM
>>>>> "RH" == Richard Hainsworth <richard@rusrating.ru> writes:

  RH> No one likes bureacracy. But I feel much happier about handing over
  RH> money, or persuading someone else to hand over money, to a group of
  RH> people with established procedures and collective responsibility, than
  RH> to some enthusiatic individual who promises the earth and whose the
  RH> world-number-one genius at code writing, but might also go and blow
  RH> the whole lot on girls and booze cos his cat died.

would you think damian has enough anti-flake genome in him to qualify
for a more direct donation? :) if you do and agree that damian is worth
supporting, i have an opportunity to propose. i am producing the perl
college which is a set of classes taught by damian in boston, aimed at
junior perl hackers. the college is sponsored by companies looking to
hire intermediate level perl developers. your company or you as an
individual, can be a sponsor which will support damian to come to the
states for this set of classes and also for the conferences (which he
missed last year because his funding came up short). if you are
interested contact me off list at uri AT perlhunter.com. for more info
on the perl college go to:

	http://perlhunter.com/college.html

thanx,

uri, dean of the perl college.

-- 
Uri Guttman  ------  uri@stemsystems.com  --------  http://www.sysarch.com --
-----  Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
---------  Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix  ----  http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
0
uri
3/25/2008 5:11:35 PM
Uri,

Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in. You mention a 
specific person, someone who is highly respected and extremely talented. 
You ask if I consider this person to be as flaky as a character that was 
a figment of my imagination, and if I say 'no he is not so flaky', then 
the implication is I will provide sponsorship. And if I demur, you might 
say 'put up or shut up' and I feel under pressure to do something I 
might not really want to.

But even if I say 'sure, how much?' to Damian Conway, what do I say to 
another request for a Klingon of altogether unknown character? And 
suppose I cant manage the whole amount, but I can pay a part, who makes 
up the rest? And suppose I pay my money, but the trip is cancelled, who 
pays me back?

And suppose I want to sponsor the development of perl6 over parrot, 
leaving training to someone else? Can I respond easily to your direct 
request without implying some slur on Damian?

The whole point about having an institutional channel for sponsorship is 
to remove the need for personal judgments, for sponsors to specify 
exactly how their money should be used, for the procedures to be in 
place to cover shortfalls from a central budget, for rules to be clear 
about what happens to money that is in excess of earmarked programmes, 
and for there to be clarity in all possible grey areas that happen in life.

What the perl6 language needs now is a systematic development plan, with 
broad aims and clear goals that will lead to good quality software and 
to the tools to enable ordinary programmers to use perl6 for a variety 
of tasks. More than that it needs the excitement that comes when there 
is tangible progress (just look what has happened to parrot as a result 
of the funding arranged via The Perl Foundation). Ad hoc, piecemeal 
processes will yield ad hoc piecemeal results.

I have absolutely no issues with the excellent series of courses you 
run, especially if they are taught by Damian. But where do they fit into 
the general scheme of things? Are they essential to the development of 
perl6, or do they only benefit a small group of regional companies. Do 
they benefit me (bear in mind that the company I run is based in Moscow, 
Russia)?

Sorry. You asked questions I am not prepared to answer because the 
questions were posed in a manner that prevents me from answering. Do 
this through The Perl Foundation and you will get a clear answer.

Richard Hainsworth

Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "RH" == Richard Hainsworth <richard@rusrating.ru> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
>   RH> No one likes bureacracy. But I feel much happier about handing over
>   RH> money, or persuading someone else to hand over money, to a group of
>   RH> people with established procedures and collective responsibility, than
>   RH> to some enthusiatic individual who promises the earth and whose the
>   RH> world-number-one genius at code writing, but might also go and blow
>   RH> the whole lot on girls and booze cos his cat died.
>
> would you think damian has enough anti-flake genome in him to qualify
> for a more direct donation? :) if you do and agree that damian is worth
> supporting, i have an opportunity to propose. i am producing the perl
> college which is a set of classes taught by damian in boston, aimed at
> junior perl hackers. the college is sponsored by companies looking to
> hire intermediate level perl developers. your company or you as an
> individual, can be a sponsor which will support damian to come to the
> states for this set of classes and also for the conferences (which he
> missed last year because his funding came up short). if you are
> interested contact me off list at uri AT perlhunter.com. for more info
> on the perl college go to:
>
> 	http://perlhunter.com/college.html
>
> thanx,
>
> uri, dean of the perl college.
>
>   
0
richard
3/25/2008 5:50:15 PM
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 10:50:15 Richard Hainsworth wrote:

> What the perl6 language needs now is a systematic development plan, with
> broad aims and clear goals that will lead to good quality software and
> to the tools to enable ordinary programmers to use perl6 for a variety
> of tasks.

Perl 6 has had several plans over the past eight years.  What Perl 6 hasn't 
had in quite a while is paid developer time.

Plans are good and plans are fine, but I've never seen a plan do the 
red-green-refactor loop once, let alone the few million times it'll take to 
finish Perl 6.0.

-- c
0
chromatic
3/25/2008 6:00:08 PM
>>>>> "RH" == Richard Hainsworth <richard@rusrating.ru> writes:

  RH> Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in. You mention
  RH> a specific person, someone who is highly respected and extremely
  RH> talented. You ask if I consider this person to be as flaky as a
  RH> character that was a figment of my imagination, and if I say 'no he is
  RH> not so flaky', then the implication is I will provide sponsorship. And
  RH> if I demur, you might say 'put up or shut up' and I feel under
  RH> pressure to do something I might not really want to.

i am sorry if i caused you any concern or confusion.  i didn't mean to
put you under any pressure in any way. my goal was to inform anyone here
about another way to help with supporting perl6 (and perl5 cpan)
developers, in particular damian. as for damian being flaky or not, that
is a great question! :).

  RH> The whole point about having an institutional channel for sponsorship
  RH> is to remove the need for personal judgments, for sponsors to specify
  RH> exactly how their money should be used, for the procedures to be in
  RH> place to cover shortfalls from a central budget, for rules to be clear
  RH> about what happens to money that is in excess of earmarked programmes,
  RH> and for there to be clarity in all possible grey areas that happen in
  RH> life.

i agree about needing better institutional channels for sponsorship. i
am just offering a small side channel for those who would like to
support damian.

  RH> I have absolutely no issues with the excellent series of courses
  RH> you run, especially if they are taught by Damian. But where do
  RH> they fit into the general scheme of things? Are they essential to
  RH> the development of perl6, or do they only benefit a small group of
  RH> regional companies. Do they benefit me (bear in mind that the
  RH> company I run is based in Moscow, Russia)?

i didn't aim this at companies in moscow. you had the last best email
on this thread which inspired me to respond. note that i replied to the lists
as well directly to you. it was a purely informational post for the perl
6 community.

thanx,

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  ------  uri@stemsystems.com  --------  http://www.sysarch.com --
-----  Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
---------  Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix  ----  http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
0
uri
3/25/2008 6:16:55 PM
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 10:50:15 Richard Hainsworth wrote:

> What the perl6 language needs now is a systematic development plan, with
> broad aims and clear goals that will lead to good quality software and
> to the tools to enable ordinary programmers to use perl6 for a variety
> of tasks.

Richard Dice mentioned that I should elaborate, lest it sound like I'm trying 
to lecture Richard Hainsworth (not my intent, and I apologize for doing so).

It's important to keep in mind the degree to which one or two volunteers going 
on vacation can slow the progress of Rakudo (for a recent example) or to 
which one or volunteers putting in a few extra hours of visible work can 
improve the progress of Parrot (for a slightly less recent example).

A plan that includes some degree of funding will help Perl 6 arrive much 
sooner.  Previous plans glossed over this part, which is one reason they 
didn't work out in the long term.

I just want to make sure that any discussion of a plan acknowledges that 
there's a fixed amount of work to go and an unknown amount of available 
resources to implement the plan.

-- c
0
chromatic
3/25/2008 6:36:47 PM
Richard Hainsworth wrote:

> Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in.

I want to endorse everything Richard then went on to say.

I have already contacted Uri and expressed my dismay at his entirely 
inappropriate interjection of an advertisement for our Perl College event into 
this discussion about funding for critical Perl projects and personnel. And I 
am especially upset that anyone might ever feel pressured to be involved in 
any project or sponsorship just because my name and reputation were invoked on 
its behalf.

It's critical that we find ways to support those in the Perl community who are 
either building our future or (just as importantly) maintaining our present. 
But injecting UCE into such discussions does not further that goal, and I am 
sincerely sorry that it was done in my name.

Damian

0
damian
3/26/2008 10:39:16 AM
------=_Part_21525_15384818.1206545090327
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I think the crucial point to pick up on is something that chromatic has
pointed out very well in any number of use.perl journal postings over the
past year.  That is, Perl 6's creation is dependent on how much time people
put into it, and how many people put in time.  The volunteer effort to date
has been exemplary and inspirational.  When you think about the universe of
possible things intelligent and energetic people could be doing with their
time, that so many have put so much into Perl 6 is a tribute both to the
worthiness of the Perl 6 project and to the fundamental goodness of the
volunteers.

Funding is the piece of the puzzle that allows us to buttress and enhance
the contributions of volunteers.  Someone who can contribute 5 hours a week
to p6 development could possibly contribute 30 hours a week if they took on
a reduced workload at their day job.  But that doesn't mean their
responsibilities just disappear:  a mortgage / rent to pay, insurance
policies need maintaining, kids have to be clothed and educated, and
everyone has a powerful need to eat.  Funding makes it possible to bridge
this gap.

To Richard's point, a systematic development plan is a tool that can be
helpful in acquiring funding.  The plan is meant to acquire funding, and the
funding is meant to be applied against the plan to make it come to pass.
Done correctly, it's a virtuous circle that Gets Things Done.  I completely
agree with chromatic that a plan without resources put against it is
neutered.  I don't want a plan that has calendar dates on it.  I want a plan
that has major pieces of work and their dependencies on each other reflected
(i.e. a GANTT chart) and a sense of the man-months of required effort for
each work-piece.  At that point, the implementation volunteers have done
their job.  It then becomes the responsibility of the funding-acquisition
volunteers to take the plan and with it seek out funding to make the
man-months happen.

Cheers,
 - Richard

PS  I often think of it like this:

Distance = velocity x Time  (D = v x T)

When people ask for a "release date" for Perl 6, what they're implicitly
saying is,

T = D / v, solve for T

chromatic has been the #1 expositor that "v" is unknown, and therefore we
can't solve for T.  In this he is quite correct.  (And when we think hard
about it, D can be sometimes hazy as well.  If Perl 6 had been implemented
100 times before we'd know D pretty well.  But we're still figuring out what
D is.)

The idea behind "a plan" is to firm up D, at least to a certain minimum
acceptible level, and to allow for "what if" scenario planning to be played
with potential funding sources. (i.e. if you can give us this much v, we'll
have a decent shot of T happening in the 8-16 month timeframe afterwards,
etc.)

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 25 March 2008 10:50:15 Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>
> > What the perl6 language needs now is a systematic development plan, with
> > broad aims and clear goals that will lead to good quality software and
> > to the tools to enable ordinary programmers to use perl6 for a variety
> > of tasks.
>
> Richard Dice mentioned that I should elaborate, lest it sound like I'm
> trying
> to lecture Richard Hainsworth (not my intent, and I apologize for doing
> so).
>
> It's important to keep in mind the degree to which one or two volunteers
> going
> on vacation can slow the progress of Rakudo (for a recent example) or to
> which one or volunteers putting in a few extra hours of visible work can
> improve the progress of Parrot (for a slightly less recent example).
>
> A plan that includes some degree of funding will help Perl 6 arrive much
> sooner.  Previous plans glossed over this part, which is one reason they
> didn't work out in the long term.
>
> I just want to make sure that any discussion of a plan acknowledges that
> there's a fixed amount of work to go and an unknown amount of available
> resources to implement the plan.
>
> -- c
>

------=_Part_21525_15384818.1206545090327--
0
rdice
3/26/2008 3:24:50 PM
can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;

   * just release perl 6 now and move on

   * do not hire 40 year olds with responsibilities, convince the
young to spend their time for free ... isn't that what one is supposed
to do after the age of 40 ?

   * use all funds to promote its usage, not fund its development

   * promote its usage past perl's borders, e.g. perl should be an
ingredient not a closed garden at some Perl conference ...

   * look at successful OS orgs like mozilla and apache (different to
each other yes) and copy their techniques

a systematic plan past these points will then be possible.

cheers, Jim Fuller
0
james
3/26/2008 6:08:15 PM
------=_Part_22660_7126424.1206557069366
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi James,

Your comment suggest you have a particular perspective or point of view.
Without providing a some context I'm afraid I'm going to find some of your
comments confusing.

>
>   * just release perl 6 now and move on
>

This is one of those confusing comments.  There isn't a single p6
implementation attempt which is feature complete.  How can it be released?
What do you mean by "move on"?


>   * do not hire 40 year olds with responsibilities, convince the
> young to spend their time for free ... isn't that what one is supposed
> to do after the age of 40 ?
>

Even if I agreed with you, who would be the project manager?  Who would be
the technical architect?  There are 21 year old diamonds-in-the-rough, but
someone needs to craft them.

Unless you're suggesting that open source is its own magic pixie dust and
gifted youngsters will just materialize out of nowhere and solve all our
problems?  'pugs' was a good rough-cut at this theory, but it was also a
demonstration that the youngsters (eventually) need jobs and health care and
whatnot too.  And that can leave the project in the lurch.

(also, call this A)


>   * use all funds to promote its usage, not fund its development
>

I have nothing at all against funds being spent on promoting usage.  Rather,
more broadly, I have nothing against "doing things" to promote usage, where
funds being spent is one good possibility.  Your statement of "do all of X,
none of Y" suggests you have done some kind of cost-benefit analysis, linear
programming, etc. that I don't understand.

(also, call this B)

  * look at successful OS orgs like mozilla and apache (different to
> each other yes) and copy their techniques
>

This seems at odds with A and B.  Mozilla funds plenty of developers
directly.  Apache is slightly more indirect in their efforts but it
co-ordinates the activities of programmers that have been hired directly by
participating corporations.

By the way, I spent plenty of time talking with Mozilla, Apache, Eclipse,
and others to try to figure out what they do and what ideas I can bring back
from them to Perl's world.

  * promote its usage past perl's borders, e.g. perl should be an
> ingredient not a closed garden at some Perl conference ...
>

Again, you seem to have some perspective that Perl is only a closed garden.
I recently attended a technology/finance hybrid conference and the 3
"ingredient" technologies that were talked about at the conference were #3 -
SQL, #2 - XML and #1 - Perl.  No others even came up.


> a systematic plan past these points will then be possible.
>

What all of myself, chromatic and Richard Hainsworth seem to appreciate is
that a plan without resources to back it up is almost guaranteed to be
ineffective.  Even more than that, we have an appreciation that planning
itself requires resources.  (Or should the mythic 21 year olds with free
time be crafting Perl's strategic plans and cross-organization promotional
activities too?)  This is what we're working on.

Cheers,
  - Richard

------=_Part_22660_7126424.1206557069366--
0
rdice
3/26/2008 6:44:29 PM
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Richard Dice <rdice@perlfoundation.org> wrote:
> What all of myself, chromatic and Richard Hainsworth seem to appreciate is
> that a plan without resources to back it up is almost guaranteed to be
> ineffective.  Even more than that, we have an appreciation that planning

I always relate OS development to how the genetic algorithm works;

e.g. a successful OS development typically works quite happily even
without a lot of upfrontplanning (though major 'weeding' can be
required) or a major spot on the horizon to navigate towards.

its ruthless in what dies (projects failing) and what succeeds
.....however it does need a few self organizing principles; a large
gene pool,  heterogeneity and the ability to mutate to respond to
short duration events, oh ya and the ability to mate .... right we can
leave the last one off ;)

I do not pretend to know how this specifically relates to getting
'critical mass' of development on perl6 to be feature complete ...  my
comments were a bit casual; I do not think that its right to release
perl6 for the language, but it might be 'right' to do for language
adoption .... no doubt cathedral / bazaar forces are in effect.

cheers ,Jim Fuller
0
james
3/26/2008 7:26:35 PM
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:26:35PM +0100, James Fuller wrote:
: oh ya and the ability to mate .... right we can
: leave the last one off ;)

No we can't.  That is *precisely* what this whole business of derivable
grammars is about, and it came about because you couldn't mate two
source filters in Perl 5 and end up with viable offspring.  Biology
has more or less solved this by making point mutations *point* mutations.
Source filters are more like a blast of gamma rays to the entire genome.

Larry
0
larry
3/26/2008 7:32:24 PM
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 11:08:15 James Fuller wrote:

> can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;
>
>    * just release perl 6 now and move on

To what extent?

Larry "just released" Perl 5 some 13 and a half years ago, and there've been a 
few patches applied to it in the past 24 hours.  (I wrote one of them.)

If we released the current most-complete version of Perl 6 right now, we'd 
release code that's difficult to install, requires a difficult-to-install 
version of GHC, is out of date with regard to several tests and portions of 
the design, and is staggeringly slow.

I can imagine that not everyone in the world would find that endearing.  How 
many of them would stick around for Perl 6.01, let alone Perl 6.10?

>    * do not hire 40 year olds with responsibilities, convince the
> young to spend their time for free ... isn't that what one is supposed
> to do after the age of 40 ?

I'm under 40, and I've spent five years of my life working on this for free.  
I don't understand this idea; where does work magically happen?

>    * use all funds to promote its usage, not fund its development

See point one.

>    * look at successful OS orgs like mozilla and apache (different to
> each other yes) and copy their techniques

Their business plans started with:

1) start with corporate backing and paid developers

We're approximately eight years late for that.

> a systematic plan past these points will then be possible.

I think you're assuming a lot of "MAGIC HAPPENS HERE" points.

-- c
0
chromatic
3/26/2008 7:49:15 PM
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 12:26:35 James Fuller wrote:

> I do not think that its right to release
> perl6 for the language, but it might be 'right' to do for language
> adoption .... no doubt cathedral / bazaar forces are in effect.

I don't follow this; can you elaborate?

-- c
0
chromatic
3/26/2008 9:23:26 PM
Damian Conway (Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:39 AM):

> I have already contacted Uri and expressed my dismay at his entirely
> inappropriate interjection of an advertisement for our Perl College
> event into
> this discussion about funding for critical Perl projects and =
personnel.

There are at least 2 places where such things *would* be appropriate
to mention (suitably revised according to your wishes, of course):

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_donations_and_fundra=
isi
ng

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_marketplace

Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker

www.AthenaLab.com

http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6=A0 =97 Official Perl 6 Wiki
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot =97 Official Parrot Wiki


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damian Conway [mailto:thoughtstream@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Damian Conway
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:39 AM
> To: perl6-users@perl.org; perl6-language@perl.org
> Subject: Re: Perl 6 fundraising and related topics.
>=20
> Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>=20
> > Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in.
>=20
> I want to endorse everything Richard then went on to say.
>=20
> I have already contacted Uri and expressed my dismay at his entirely
> inappropriate interjection of an advertisement for our Perl College
> event into
> this discussion about funding for critical Perl projects and =
personnel.
> And I
> am especially upset that anyone might ever feel pressured to be
> involved in
> any project or sponsorship just because my name and reputation were
> invoked on
> its behalf.
>=20
> It's critical that we find ways to support those in the Perl community
> who are
> either building our future or (just as importantly) maintaining our
> present.
> But injecting UCE into such discussions does not further that goal, =
and
> I am
> sincerely sorry that it was done in my name.
>=20
> Damian

0
conrad
4/1/2008 3:04:39 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

perl6-users or perl6-meta?
perl6-meta was reactivated[1] few weeks ago. Now that perl6-users has been created[2], what about perl6-meta? Will perl6-meta be used anymore or not? I'll guess perl6-users will be used instead of perl6-meta, but I'm just asking for confirmation so that I'll know which lists to follow. [1] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.meta/989 [2] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.announce/511 --=20 Markus Laire Markus Laire wrote: > perl6-meta was reactivated[1] few weeks ago. > Now that perl6-users has been created[2], what about perl6-meta? > Wi...

Migrate Netware 6 users to Netware 6
I am setting up a new Netware 6 server replacing our old hardware. I have alredy installed and have the new server running. All I need is to be able to copy the existing instructor accounts over. Is there an easy way to do this? Thanks Dave. David, > I am setting up a new Netware 6 server replacing our old hardware. I have > alredy installed and have the new server running. All I need is to be able > to copy the existing instructor accounts over. Is there an easy way to do > this? > The migration wizard. Download from Novell. Read the manual. - An...

Cannot delete GroupWise (6.5.6) user in ConsoleOne
I'm not allowed to delete the user in ConsoleOne, I get the following: Deletion failed. A key|reference is not found - modify delete error (c035). The object is no longer in the Extend tree, nor is it visible in the NWAdmin tree browser either. I'm stumped. WmH William Hayashi wrote: > I'm not allowed to delete the user in ConsoleOne, I get the following: > > Deletion failed. A key|reference is not found - modify delete error > (c035). > > The object is no longer in the Extend tree, nor is it visible in the > NWAdmin tree browser ei...

GW 6 user to GW 7 user migration
Hi to all! I have here a very important problem. We have installed a new eDIR environment. With everything things that you can include in a eDIR. ;o) Also new user. The old eDIR tree be called ABC, the new one be called ABCTREE. In our old system we also have a GW 6.5.6 system. In our new system we have a GW 7.0.1 system. In both systems we have user with the same user id. The reason is, that we want to get a absolute new eDIR environment (maybe this was a mistake... :o( ) 90% of the user have the same user ID, 5% have a new one, the rest are not longer in the new eDIR. Now my qu...

6.0 to 6.5 user license question
I just finished upgrading to Netware 6.5 from 6.0. I installed my new user licenses (and had both 6 and 6.5 user licenses in the tree). I logged in and was still connecting through my old licenses. I uninstalled the old licenses, logged in (connected and accessed network resources) but when viewed through iManager I am still not seeing any connections to these new licenses (90 installed, 0 in use). I currently have about ten people logged in and working. Am I missing something? I think so, just not sure what. Lou Behrman Sys Admin Streamlight, Inc. If you had only ...

Move user from 6.0 to 6.5 not working
Hello all. I'm trying to move a user from a GroupWise 6.0.2 domain/PO to a GroupWise 6.5.4 doamin/PO on a different server (all part of the same GroupWise system). This isn't working. Under 'Move User Status', I get an 0x1080000 error. A new userxxx.db gets created in the new domain/PO, but the messages never come accross. Also, the old domain/PO shows the user as not having been moved. Any ideas. Dean Waters Rentrak Corporation Portland, Oregon Dean, It appears that in the past few days you have not received a response to your posting. That concerns us, ...

GroupWise 6.0 to 6.5 move user
I'm in a real bind here: I have a two server configuration, the primary domain was just upgraded to 6.5.4. The secondary domain is 6.0SP2. Now that the primary was upgraded, I can no longer move users from the secondary doamin (6.0) to the primary domain (6.5). When I try, the Move User Status shows 0x1080000 in the Last Move Status column. A new userxxx.db gets created in the desination P.O., but the contents are empty. The same userxxx.db still exists in the souce P.O. Also, within ConsoleOne, if I connect to the destination domain, the user object shows up with the destination ...

How to edit IBuySpy , So that related modules are assigned to related user
I want to change the layout of tabs MODULES according to the user , so that user can view only that modules which are assinged to him wen we add a new tab. There's a very good article about this here. It's very easy to follow, and leads to a more granular level of security for IBS...

3.6.6 #6
Name: Ulrich Email: Jambor-Ingatt-onlinedotde Product: Firefox Summary: 3.6.6 Comments: Update 3.6.3 to 3.6.6 Fehler: Proxy server nicht gefunden ( not found ) Firefox funktioniert nicht mehr was tun ? Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-DE) AppleWebKit/531.21.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4 Safari/531.21.10 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

NetWare 6.5 User Licenses in a NetWare 6 tree
Never heard of that one before, but the consulting firm I work for was told by a Novell sales rep that NetWare 6.5 user licenses will work in a NetWare 6 tree. I installed them in the same container as my other licenses. They, of course, created a new license container to hold them. It has been three weeks and not a single license has been consumed. Looking at the other licenses, 2 more than the installed amount are in use. To me it seems that the clients or NLS cannot retrieve one of those new licenses. Has anyone heard of this before? Or was the boss taken for a ride on this o...

user #6
Name: www.vaddi.sunny@yahoo.com Email: wwwdotvaddidotsunnyatyahoodotcom Product: Firefox Summary: user Comments: my computer Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.5pre) Gecko/20100523 Namoroka/3.6.5pre From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

6 #6
Name: levinh_1991@.com.vn Email: levinh_1991atdotcomdotvn Product: Minefield Summary: 6 Comments: hoangha Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20090816 Minefield/3.7a1pre From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

Off Topic Sort Of
Hello All probably not the best place to ask this question but I'm sure someone will be able to answer this  for me :) When you add a user to a sharepoint site by email address is there anyway you can limit the display of the user name field to show the UPN as opposed to the real domain the account belongs to?  Thanks Richard No, as far as I know.Thanks,Dmitri Gaikovoi...

user #6
Name: Dmitri Email: dmitridotanttonen.mail.ru Product: Gran Paradiso Alpha 1 Summary: user Comments: tester Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061204 GranParadiso/3.0a1 ...

Upgrade users from GW5.2 to GW 6(or 6.5)
How do I proceed if I have a NW 4.11 server running GW5.2 and have a server I am going to load NW 5.1 on and add it to the same tree and make it my new email server running either GW 6 or the new GW6.5. And the guy before me lost the GW 5.2 software, so I don't have that option. Thanks You don't need the old software to move and upgrade the current version. Check out TID10008433 for the move instructions then do the upgrade. Check out www.caledonia.net for the GW6.0 upgrade guide e-book. GW6.5 coming soon. -- Barry Merchant NSC Volunteer SysOp **...

Web resources about - Perl 6 fundraising and related topics. - perl.perl6.users

Fundraising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fundraising or fund raising (also known as " development ") is the process of gathering voluntary contributions of money or other resources , ...

Fundraising Ideas - Elementary, Middle, & High School Fundraisers
High profit fundraising ideas for schools and PTA fundraiser sales. Cookie dough, frozen food, gift, custom mugs, and discount card fundraisers. ...

Easy Fundraising Ideas for Schools, Churches, Sports and Non Profits
Easy fundraisers for schools, sports and church groups. Easy Fundraising Ideas helped more than 10,000 groups raise more than $20,000,000 last ...

Fundraising Ideas, Fund Raising for Charity - easyfundraising.org.uk
Free fundraising ideas for raising money for your charity, cause or school by shopping online with your favourite retailers such as Amazon & ...

Blog for Cramer & Associates Fundraising
The blog of Cramer & Associates who helps with fundraising, campaign planning and management for not-for-profits, churches, education, arts, ...

Did Facebook IPO Ruin Fundraising For Startups?
A missive posted by Paul Graham , founder of investment firm Y Combinator , warned that there may be funding hurdles for startups in the future ...

More Rumors Circulate Around Facebook’s Fundraising Efforts and Valuation
Facebook has said publicly that it is in talks with potential investors all the time, but the amount of interest in the term sheets Facebook’s ...

Higher Education Regional Development Fundraising
Higher Education Regional Development Fundraising group - dedicated to benchmarking best practices of institutions that have an office committed ...

Jim Messina: April Fundraising & Paths to 270 Update - YouTube
Help build this campaign: https://my.barackobama.com/paths270updatevid Hey everybody. I'm Jim Messina, the President's campaign manager. I wanted ...

Canadian teenager gets the ultimate surprise while performing Ed Sheeran song at fundraising event
British popstar Ed Sheeran has surprised a young fan&nbsp;by joining her on stage at a shopping centre for an impromptu duet&nbsp;in Alberta, ...

Resources last updated: 1/12/2016 10:46:09 AM