Hi Steve, On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:03:09PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:24:15PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: > >[you are reading this again because i sent it firstl by mistake to the wrong > >list...] > > Doh! :-P > > >Also, I think marga or gunnar, not sure now, proposed to fund only a percent > >of the requested amount. And instead of start with the ordered list of > >people and fund so far as the money reaches, start funding a 20 % of all the > >people who were approved for sponsorship, then if we get more money, fund a > >30% and so on. Only making exceptions with people who really needs the funding > >to attend. > > If we're getting to this stage, then something has gone wrong with the > travel sponsorship already. People are expected (and told) to just > list the amount they *must* have sponsorship for in order to be able > to travel. Given that, offering 20% or 30% of that amount is not going > to help. > > Do we believe that people are asking for more than they need? The thing is it's not predictable at all. Many people work as freelancer so they can't have a notion about their funds for next three months. In some cases they are looking for a job. Other example is like "ok, if I get 80% of the expenses paid from DC, I'll be ok in not working 60h/week next month. Otherwise, if I get only 40% I have to take that slave 60h/week job in order to be able to attend." I guess these and other related cases are so common, not exceptions. Regards, -- Tiago Bortoletto Vaz http://tiagovaz.org 0xA504FECA - http://pgp.mit.edu GNU/Linux user #188687
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature