Re: [Debconf-team] Some assumptions about the DC11 accounting
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 12:45:01PM +0100, Moray Allan wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 21:16 -0400, Richard Darst wrote:
> > One sponsor forgot to pay DC11, I am recording this as being passed on
> > to DC12 (since that is where the money will appear). So, it is DC11
> > income, not DC12, but isn't counting as our surplus. It also isn't
> > counting as DC11 income.
>
> I'm not too worried how this shows up, as long as it's clearly explained
> in a note and as long as it's not included in the main DC12 sponsorship
> figures.
>
> > Two organizers were owed money for various expenses, which they never
> > claimed. I am marking this as donations (unclaimed-reimbursement),
> > instead of following up.
>
> This sounds sensible. For this year's cycle, we should implement the
> previously discussed deadline for claims. Does someone remember if we
> agreed how many months would be allowed?
I don't remember (my advocation was "must have forms done and
physically given by end of debconf"), although these two costs were
unrelated to travel sponsorship things, the same idea applies. At
least one said ey didn't want to claim it.
> > I see four newbies which were paid out of DC11 travel funds, total
> > cost of 1794.38 EUR. I am making a virtual transaction saying that
> > this money came as an _income_ from debian, as opposed to being debian
> > equity we are using, since Debian agreed to pay for this already, thus
> > it should not count against our surplus from DC11.
>
> Well, as with the late DC11 sponsorship, this is not really DC11 income
> in the sense we normally mean that for calculating a "surplus". From an
> overall Debian point of view, it's most useful to calculate what the
> "surplus"/"loss" was on the conference without these types of "income".
> If €100,000 of general Debian funds is transferred in and left unspent,
> that shouldn't increase the headline "surplus" figure.
I agree abstractly, but I think this specific case doesn't apply here.
This "newbies" thing was supposed to be a completely separate program,
as in something we wouldn't have done otherwise. The "we don't have
enough money, can we have some extra?" cases are counted against our
surplus (they are equity:debian).
Another way to look at it could be: say debconf is just breaking even.
Debian does newbies initiative, run by debconf. Now debconf is
running a deficit, but not due to its own choices, and it would
reasonably choose to not do the Newbies initiative.. The way to show
how much debconf is running itself is to put down these expenses as
income:debian (or something like that, or income:newbies if a
different name would make it appear less confusing).
Or, yet another way, Debian said they would bear this cost, so it
should be denoted as such, somehow.
> > For the final report, I am using USD/EUR exchange rates of 2012
> > December 31.
>
> I assume you mean 31 December *2011*, but, if it's easy to change, can't
> you use a value from during the DebConf period? There was significant
> change in rates during the year.
>
> (Ideally it would be the rate on each relevant date, but I'm not
> suggesting you waste time doing that for past data.)
I just assumed everything was "closed" that day, but I could change
it.
- Richard
--
| Richard Darst - rkd@ - boltzmann: up 1054 days, 14:10
| http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740
| "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free"
Reply to: