Subject: Re: bleeding money out of clispers
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:59:25 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Lyn A Headley
> It's a bit harder for me to defend my conditional giving to the MT
> project.  As you say, I should certainly expect that my money will
> not be spent unless there are enough funds built up for the project
> to succeed.  I honestly believe though, that my conditional offer will
> make others more likely to contribute than a non-conditional one, since
> the value of whatever pledge they might make is now augmented by the
> value of my pledge, and the effect of their not pledging not only results
> in the project not getting their money, it deprives the project of my
> money as well.

  For what it might be worth, when I hear somebody make a conditional
  commitment to something, I also hear strong doubts about its success.
  When I hear someone asking for X amount of money in order to keep
  something going (in the case of the only leftist newspaper in this
  country) or to start something, I may want to commit as much as I can
  spare in the expectation that if the whole thing is overcommitted, I
  receive notification of such overcommitment and do not have to commit all
  that I was prepared to.  If, however, somebody gives me the feeling that
  he will only commit money if everybody else fail to commit sufficient
  funds, I feel like I would give him all that money.  So to me, there is a
  very sharp distinction in impression left by someone who commits money
  before or after the condition is set.  If you commit the money and want
  it back if not enough funds are secured, that is fine with me.  If you
  tell me that you withhold funds until the condition is met, I actually
  interpret that to mean that I should not commit at this time, either.

  I also believe that marketing a project is about communicating a sense of
  trust in its success.  Nothing says that better than having put up some
  real money of your own.  Of course, you could be lying, but you could
  also be lying about putting up your share when others have put up theirs.
  Given the general lack of knowledge of other people's trustworthiness, I
  am more likely to trust someone who (says he) has already done what he
  would like others to do, than he who asks others to do it first.

  Now, more useful than MT in CLISP in my view is support for multiple
  listeners abd background streams in ILISP.  So far, Allegro CL has such
  an advantage over the others in terms of multiprocessing by virtue of
  this feature in the Emacs-Lisp Interface alone that they have no real
  competition.  That would be doing something useful with the available
  multiprocessing support in existing Common Lisp implementations.

  And how about writing up some specification-quality material for this
  that could go into some sort of standard?  That is also sorely needed.

  Travel is a meat thing.