On 15/10/14 at 17:07 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > So from my point of view, in reality approving the DebConf budget > > is not so much about saying "Debian agrees to contribute up to x". > > It's more about saying "Debian agrees to contribute up to x, and, > > given the overall budget, is prepared to extend its commitment to > > what is necessary so that we can have a successful DebConf." > > What's the difference between what you suggest and Debian just > committing (up to) y from the start, given that any surplus comes > back to Debian anyway and we won't use money from Debian to fund > expenses beyond the worst-case-budget? There is none, except that y = ~100k€ (in a worst case budget without any additional sponsors, and no professional/corporate attendees, which I agree is unlikely, but that's the point of a worst case budget). That is an amount of money that I don't think a DPL should prepare to spend without an understanding of how it would be going to be spent. > > Given that, looking only at history, it seems likely that the > > budget will be discussed again, I think that it is desirable that > > the DPL is involved right from the start. > > I have absolutely no problem with the DPL being involved from the > start. I just don't want to introduce formal dependencies that > contradict the chairs delegation and also the way fundraising, > budgeting, accounting, and controlling are designed to interface > with each other. I don't think that the chairs delegation contradicts what was written in that discussion. But if you feel that the delegation is unclear, maybe we need to clarify it. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature