I’m delighted to say the World SF Travel Fund has reached its fund-raising goal of $6000, enabling us not only to send Charles Tan to the World Fantasy Convention this year (where he is nominated for the award!) but to send a second candidate next year to another major convention.
We’ve spoken to the people at Peerbackers (who have been wonderful throughout) and we’re going to increase the goal, to try and raise enough money for three years of operations, or at the very least to cover the paypal and peerbackers cost (which come out of the total).
I want to thank anyone who donated! And please continue to spread the word and give if you can (remember you get your money’s worth in e-books!) and let’s try to keep going and send a third deserving person on their way in 2013!
http://peerbackers.com/projects/the-world-sf-travel-fund/home/
The World SF Blog 
Now please don’t get me wrong — and to be absolutely clear: I *have* donated and am looking forward to meeting Charles in San Diego — but this raising of the goal from $6000 to $9000 is, IMHO, sending out the wrong message.
It reeks of greed — especially to the first backers who, together, ponied up the needed $6000 — and gives an overall impression of being completely unprofessional: OMG: we met our original goal sooner than expected, so let’s milk out the masses some more.
It would have been *much* better to let this one run its course — in the same manner that the people of SMBC, who set up a kickstarter crowdfundraiser did, when they found out that their original goal of $15,000 was met more than 4 times over. They didn’t raise the goal: they just happily and gracefully accepted what’s coming to them.
I’ve donated to both causes. But in the future I will not hesitate to donate again to SMBC, because they’ve got the right attitude, and I will be extremely hesitant to donate to the World SF Blog Travel Fund.
It’s all in the impression: SMBC = classy; World SF Blog Travel Fund = greedy.
It would have been *much* better to start a fundraiser for the 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc.) *after* this. Impressions count.
It would have been *much* better to start a undraiser for the 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc.) *after* this. Impressions count.
Jetse,
I don’t know what you mean by greedy. No one’s making any money from this fund – its purpose is to help people who otherwise can’t afford it to travel. Our plan has been, from the start, to first try and reach funding for the first two years and then, if possible, to try and raise enough for a third year. We very much value your donation, and everyone else’s! Raising the goal won’t affect previous donations, and we don’t necessarily expect to reach it, but the goal is simply not to have to do a fund-raiser every year if at all possible but have enough seed money to facilitate operations.
I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but to call it “greedy” is I think unfair. At the moment we have the money to help both Charles and a second candidate in 2012. If we can help a third person in 2013, then this is exactly what we’ve set out to do!
I think the word “greedy” is more than a bit unfair. Unwise, maybe, but greedy, no. It did look a bit strange when the goal number changed. I understand what you were trying to do, though. But I wasn’t willing, or to be honest, able to give anymore than I did. I feared that others felt the same. For a moment, I thought the fund in danger of not getting anything at all if the goal of $9,000 wasn’t reached. I’m glad to see that the goal amount of $6,000 was restored and all is well with the world. I’m super super charged that this worked and that Charles is going to WFC! I wish I could be there myself to cheer him on as he wins his award 😉