On 20 Apr 2006 13:40:40 -0400, Heow Eide-Goodman lists@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