Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • <smartass>Last I checked, 25,000 + 50,000 came to 75,000</smartass> ;-)

    I suspect the problem is somewhat in having people to give it to who can do stuff that the community views as worthwhile AND that they wouldn't be able to (either at all or only on a much longer timescale) without it. For some - maybe many - folks who already have a full time job (which I suspect is the majority) that's kinda hard. I know full well the times I've been putting in full on-site days on projects, doing anything on others on an evening was kinda...urgh. Plus I know that if I don't actually use weekends for getting a decent amount of time away from what I do during the week, my productivity and motivation the next week won't be so good. I suspect this is the case for more people (of course, not all people) than just me.

    Thus for some people the chance to earn a little extra on a weekend and evening is probably not going to really work out in reality, even if they desire it to do so. And few are going to choose to quit a secure job - especially with the current state of the job market - for something that can only promise to fund them for a year or so. And while I can't relate to it 'cus I'm still unwanted^Wsingle, I can imagine that this is a stronger emotion for those who have folks (spouse/partner/kids) to care for besides themselves. And in that sense maybe we *are* blocking on money - yes it's great that we do have such a nice cash pile to pay people well to do worthwhile stuff, but perhaps it's not enough to give someone a stable long-enough term position, and thus tempt them from an existing job.

    Maybe I'm off base, maybe not. But I suspect folks in my situation are rare (to fill in for those who don't know me, I graduated from uni, figured I'd spend a year traveling and earning bits on odd gigs that I could do mostly remotely, then realized that was fun and that with some care, use of contacts who often needed bits doing and a vague effort at financial planning I could make that a relatively sustainable lifestyle). If it's possible to find a few people in my situation - who can choose to not take That Other Contract and get funded to do some Perl work instead, and have the skills to do the work involved - then it's maybe quite easy to spend an amount like this. But otherwise, it's probably a case of allocating a big chunk of it to try and lure an individual from a full-time position, or who is looking for one, on the basis that they understand it's for a limited time unless more funding can come along.

    Just my 2 (euro) cents,

    Jonathan

    • 25 000 Euros = 35 030 U.S. dollars (according to Google)

      Which 35000 (there's a commission right?) + 50000 = 85000.

    • Maybe I'm off base, maybe not.

      I think your assessment is pretty reasonable. Certainly, it ties up with what I'm thinking, and why I'm fairly sure that "we" (well, they-who-have-this-money) can't "simply" offer to pay someone to "do stuff that needs doing" on Perl 5 - because nearly everyone obvious who already "does stuff" has a job, and isn't in a position where they can free up time if given money.

      Whilst anyone who does not (yet) "do stuff" would need training and mentoring (to some degree) by someone who

      • That's why I think it is best to spend that money not on programming but on infrastructure: conferences, hosting (for Perl Mongers for example), graphic design for important Perl projects, etc.