On 20 Apr 2006 13:40:40 -0400, Heow Eide-Goodman <lists(a)alphageeksinc.com>
wrote:
>
> Actually Kenny, you hit it on the nose.
>
> Here is the process as-envisioned:
>
> 1. A prospective student has a gread project idea
> 2. LispNYC reviews student and idea
> 3. If we determine that idea and student are considered worthy, then
> LispNYC says yeah or nay.
> 4. (if (eq 'nay (lisp-nyc-review-process student) 'adios) (progn ...
> ))
> 5. We think they've got a fighting chance then LispNYC pledges $500
> 6. Student works and works and works
> 7. Google reviews everything and the grants are awarded.
> 8. If they're not funded by Google, then we give them the $500
>
>
> Since our intent is to attract smart motivated students to get a
> head-start on the work rather than motivated shysters, then we should
> carefully consider this. Everything comes with risks and this needs to
> mitigate our risk rather than increase it.
>
> Please consider this, carefully.
>
> The RCP process is exactly the same review that we use for Google.
> However, for a mere $500, it allows us:
>
> * More time to scrutinize the student.
> * Determine whether she is sufficiently motivated to complete the
> project.
> * Better determine their technical chops, in Lisp or otherwise.
OK, this makes no sense. Why not let Google waste their $500 instead of
ours? We do the same due diligence either way, but if it turns out we
screwed up, we take the hit. And I have to ask: what problem are you trying
to solve? We did great last year. There was one screw-up, and I am
completely to blame because I had an early warning of exactly what
transpired. We have learned that lesson and will be more careful this time
in the review process. But to be honest, again, I had all the early warning
in the world on the cl-sockets didaster, I just sailed through that flashing
red light.
I thought the angle was "attract more projects". That was at least
plausible. But, again, I doubt the guarantee would do that, I think it would
attract (not reward) more crap.
kt