James and the Giant Contest

["Karen Randall" <krandall@world.std.com>]

James has made some suggestions for the convention that have some merit, and
should be considered.  BUT, I think it is important that James come to
understand that future donations made for the benefit of AGA are for the
benefit of AGA, not strictly the contest.  The fact that he "got there
first" doesn't mean that the contest has exclusive, ongoing rights to this
largess.  When he started the contest, it so happened that AGA had no other
need to solicit donations.  In the interim that has changed.  AGa is finally
on the move.  Our projects have more to offer members, more to offer
contributors and at the same time we are and will probably continue to be
more in the need of donations.

I personally think it is inappropriate to give out such huge prizes for the
contest.  James was the one who wanted to down-play the competitive nature
of the event.  The larger the prizes, the greater the incentive to compete
just for prizes instead of fellowship, and the greater the temptation to
cheat.

In this particular case, this year, I feel that it is important that prizes
solicited specifically for the contest be used for the contest.  That was
the way it was presented to contributors, and that was the impression the
contest committee was working under.  But NONE of us, including James, had
any idea we'd get the response we got.  Even James has stated more than once
that there is almost an embarrassment of riches.

Does James really think he would have received these donations if this were
a "non-AGA" event?  Not to in any way belittle their hard work, if he and
the small group he worked with had gone to these vendors without an
established, reputable organization behind them, how many vendors would have
even considered sending all these donations?  That was one of the reasons he
was adamant about doing this project under AGA auspices from the very
beginning.

To answer James' comment that donating to the contest might be more
attractive to vendors than donating to the AGA in general, I am not
convinced that this is the case.  But assuming that it is, there is a very
simple solution.  If all donations to AGA are solicited at once, we can very
easily have a page (or pages) and links on the AGA general web site to thank
these contributors and give them the same PR on an on-going basis that they
are now receiving on the contest pages.(which, of course, by no coincidence
also housed on the AGA web site)  This can be done with or without the
contest.

We should NOT be soliciting donations specifically for either the contest OR
another purpose.  Donations don't have strings attached.  You can check with
Bob McCaw, but I _think_ that such donations are not even considered
donations.  More importantly, I don't think we can afford to tie the AGA's
hands that way.  What happens when we decide to do some other worthy
project?  Does it mean that that project has to stand in line as the "poor
cousin" and survive only on the scraps left over after after the contest?
It makes no sense to manage an organization based solely on "my project came
first".

Karen