<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/17/2017 1:53 PM, Jörg Knobloch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a84d8c4d-4c6f-f616-d1fa-9f7214f9a105@jorgk.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/08/2017 16:53, Benjamin Kerensa
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGOdq5=3uznZEHc7=1ND7nHD8wEe2-en9R9E44GbVEbfutOF3Q@mail.gmail.com">"<span>In
fact, if reviewed now, we'd have to remove some people from
the list :-("</span>
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:monospace;font-size:11.128px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span>So wait your admitting that more frequent
review might be better oversight? Why would you want to wait
a year and yet entitle people to grants of hardware which
you say if reviewed now they wouldn't be eligible for.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:monospace;font-size:11.128px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span>Seems more frequent reviews or a review
upon the time of request would be a more accountable way of
spending donations?</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Dear Benjamin,</p>
<p>thanks for writing and voicing your concern.</p>
<p>First and foremost let me assure you that the Thunderbird
Council is spending income from donations in a transparent,
accountable, professional and best possible way.</p>
<p>As for the hardware for developers issue: The list was
established at the end of March 2017 as you can see from the
history of the Wiki page. It was established after some
discussion in the Council and after running an analysis tool to
count checkins. That was five months ago.</p>
<p>The list is under constant informal review, as I do most of the
sheriffing on comm-central. I would of course call for an update
of the list should the occasion arise and we would also then
re-run the analysis tool. As far as I'm aware, the list is
up-to-date, however, one person on the list has departed the
project, apparently for personal or work-related reasons. We
will adjust the list accordingly in due course, but please
understand that we can't kick someone off should they fail to
contribute for a while after years of solid contributions. Of
course all requests for grants will be carefully checked. I am
sad to say that there haven't been any new arrivals who
contribute on a weekly basis, however, we have a few new
promising new contributors and also come-backs or seasoned
contributors, so we will repeat analysis and discussion towards
the end of the year.</p>
<p>Perhaps I can give you some background information on why the
idea of a hardware grant was established in the first place. One
of our developers who devotes time to the project ever day and
maintains a module on three platforms desperately needs hardware
for a platform that cannot be run as a virtual machine. Another
one works on some old hardware where a simple build takes one to
two hours to complete. The Council is of the opinion that these
people who give their time freely to the project shouldn't also
have to buy their own hardware to keep doing so.</p>
</blockquote>
Quite right. Further to the point of absentee/"lapsed" individuals,
if someone was absent for 6 months or a year and decided to come
back because getting hardware allows them to do the work (absent
non-functional or frustrating hardware), we should support that
effort and welcome them back. We've had productive people with bad
hardware and didn't have the process in place to support them.
</body>
</html>