Re: [Debconf-team] budget approval process
On 14.10.2014 16:46, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <leader@debian.org> [2014-10-14 14:25 +0200]:
>> I'd like to process to be the following:
>> - budget team sends the budget to the debconf team, to ask for feedback
>> and detect possible things that could have been forgotten. (the budget
>> team needs to consider demands and match them with reality -- it's
>> possible that not everything can be funded)
>
> I think this needs not be mentioned. We should always involve our
> team colleagues whenever we need them or it's appropriate to do so.
> This does not mean that consensus has to be established, nor should
> we allow for bikeshedding, but nothing about DebConf can be
> decided/designed in a cave without involvement of the others, and we
> should live this (rather than have it be the proposed process).
>
> At the same time, we are creating sub-teams, or "competence centres"
> around people who have more experience in one area than others. And
> so if a team charged with task Foo decides that Foo should be done
> in Bar way, then this is hopefully based on careful evaluation of
> feedback, but in general should not be questioned (unless of course
> there's an outcry…).
martin: ??? Are you commenting the paragraph you quoted?
>> - budget team sends the budget to debconf chairs for review (and
>> possibly integrates feedback)
>> - the debconf chairs forward the budget to the DPL, with their advice
>> (ranging from "everything is OK" to "we should be careful about
>> that").
>> - the DPL considers the debconf chairs' advice and makes a decision
>> accordingly.
>
> I find this troublesome in multiple ways:
>
> First, it introduces IMHO unnecessary complexity into the process
> and opens doors for Chinese Whispers, while at the same time I see
> zero advantage in having such a multi-stage communication process.
>
> Second, it turns the budget team into petty foremen doing the
> back-office work, at least that's how I would feel if my sole task
> was to prepare a budget that the chairs then present to the DPL,
> possibly adding their own feedback, of which I will have no
> knowledge.
>
> Third, IMHO, the DPL delegated "constitutional responsibility […]
> for the use of Debian resources" to the chairs. This means that the
> chairs can approve a budget without DPL involvement.
but budget of DebConf are so huge (compared to the other Debian
expenses) that I think it should be a task for DPL.
I think the the stages is correct: chairs follows more the discussions
and have more knowledge of details and realistic outcome.
OTOH DPL should check the raw numbers to see if it fits on Debian
purpose and budget.
And the DPL <-> chair communications should be a black box for us, so if
it works for them, it will not make it more complex on our view.
> It is a fallacy to assume that the DPL has to have the final say
> here because if the budget is not met, then it'd be an expectation
> for Debian to cover any losses. Debian's money as made available to
> DebConf is income just like any income from fundraising or attendee
> payments. Approving a budget and committing funds from Debian are
> two entirely separate steps, and if they've been treated as one in
> the past, then I think that was wrong.
I think you overgeneralize the DC15 case. In DC13 and DC15 it was very
easy to create an association and handle the money externally, which is
not the case on most of the other DCs.
And the most important expenses are paid in advance (by Debian), so the
losses are already covered by Debian, in both cases.
> If it looks like we'll fail to meet the approved budget (which may
> well already include Debian funds as income), then we might need to
> investigate the possibility for Debian to commit more funds ahead of
> time. Until more funds are committed, the budget won't be met, other
> sources of income have to be sought, and expenses cut. This is the
> whole purpose of budgeting.
This is a usual job of team/chairs. On DC12 there was strict requirement
to cut expenses (so a new venue). On DC13 the DebCamp was cut (and
restored when we had money). DC14 had (IIRC) more flexible contracts, so
no cut, but IIRC some expenses were delayed until having enough money.
So that procedure is already in place, also when there is an approved
budget.
> So no, I don't think the chairs are the best to advise the DPL on
> whether a proposed budget makes sense. In an ideal world, the best
> people to do that are those that (a) have experience with DebConf
> themselves, (b) know when to ask when things aren't clear, and whom
> to ask, and (c) are willing to help organise DebConf by contributing
> their experience with budgeting. Why else would you need those
> people?
and (d) should be trusted by DPL and (e) it is independent from actual
DC (independent, so he can see more easy problems), and (f) willing to
help. I think nobody fullfill it, so chairs (or the Debian accountants)
are still the best people to appoint. BTW they cannot refuse such offer ;-)
> Ideally, the approval comes from the chairs, because then the budget
> team can assume that the other party has sufficient DebConf orga
> knowledge. And conversely, the chairs know the budget team members,
> ideally to the point where they can trust their judgement on the
> budget, rather than having to scrutinise it themselves.
As I wrote in IRC, with the bikeshed metaphor. Budgeting is the nuclear
power plant. Nobody really scrutinize it. People check only the big
numbers. Just add a big "transnational fee" and check who complains.
ciao
cate
Reply to: