[UK-TUG] Tex/Metafont

[Jay Hammond]

Hi Bill/Derek ,

I should cc this to UKTUG announce. You did not write to uktug-announce, 
so I won't repeat your email  below.

I asked members earlier in the year what UKTUG should spend it's money 
on.  Several other members, like you, suggested that some project, to 
benefit TeX & friends would be appropriate. Often with interesting detail.

You are correct,  and UKTUG has a standing invitation for anyone, 
members included, to apply for funds to advance TeX &c.

The committee has considered applications in the past, and funded some, 
not others. It's a lot of work getting a proposal together, and it's 
quite a lot of work ensuring a proposal is not just a waste of money. 
For instance, some years back, UKTUG funded the development of some 
fonts with math symbols for a year. On condition UKTUG  was given a  
progress report and it hoped to fund the second year.

The report was not submitted on time, the fonts were not finished, and 
the correspondence expressed disappointment. Eventually there was an 
incomplete report, an explanation of the delay, and after 4-5 years the 
fonts were finally complete. UKTUG was lucky that the developers were so 
determined.  It could have been that after a year the fonts were not 
complete, and development stopped.

Perhaps UKTUG should take the attitude that not every project is 
successful, and it can't know which will be successful in advance and 
that the outcome of the successful ones is worth the total spend on 
projects? (Think of the attitude of angel investors.)

I don't have the energy to assess and oversee projects. I'm stealing 
time from other commitments to reply to you.  The committee (where it 
expresses itself at all on this topic) seems have the same constraint.  
Hence the need to transfer UKTUG funds to somewhere that does have that 
energy and has the aim of promoting /supporting  TeX etc.

You are right in principle, it would be proper for UKTUG to spend its 
own money on its objects. But in practice, there is not the energy to do 
so responsibly.

You said  for some problems, TeX is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. and 
that it would be good to address that issue. I agree.   A simple small 
illustrated brochure can be put together with Word. A  more complex 
brochure/workflow might  require  special features, such as a high 
proportion of high res images,  a highly automated index, or inclusion 
of material from a database. Even a simple brochure that needs frequent 
updating might qualify. These requirements need to be done predominantly 
manually in Word. The need to do things manually, and in such a way as 
to prevent Word from crashing  means that the overall time cost is 
greater than getting to grips with TeX & tools.  I've done brochures 
both ways. There isn't, to my mind,  a simple dividing line between the 
quick cheap tools, and the sophisticated robust one(s) like TeX &c.  I 
think exposing more people to the possibility that their workflow would 
be easier/faster  with TeX not slower/harder is what is needed.  These 
adepts could then gather the experience to choose an appropriate tool  
for the task at hand.

That is why I have assisted UKTUG deliver face-to-face LaTeX training, 
and  support the LearnLaTeX project.

Jay Hammond


-- 
Email use jay at jjnr.uk