also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <leader@debian.org> [2014-10-15 08:15 +0200]:
> I think that the root of our disagreement is that you are
> discussing how things should be in an ideal world.
No, I am talking about how we are doing things, and how they really
ought to be done in the future, not just in an ideal world. Really,
we must not use the excuse that Debian is so adorably chaotic and
uncontrollable that we shouldn't try to stick to best practices
(budgeting in this case).
> However, reality shows that during most recent editions of
> DebConf:
> (1) Debian has had to commit more money than initially planned at
> some point (or at least that was discussed during one of the
> numerous budget crisis)
This is not a problem to the process I am proposing (although it is
obviously a problem if we fail to meet budget). As I said numerous
times now: if we reach the point where the budget cannot be met
unless Debian commits more money, then we'll need to have such
a crisis meeting and see if you can approve more funds. If the DPL
can, then the budget can be updated and a new budget approved.
> (2) the final numbers are quite different from what was initially
> discussed (sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way)
The final numbers are completely irrelevant to the budget, although
it's obviously important information if we were to find out that we
have always under-/overestimated a certain aspect of the budget in
the past years, for then we should try to avoid doing that again.
The way to get those data is not by updating a budget
post-conference, but by integrating the budget into the books,
which I intend to do for DC15 (if I am going to do the accounts),
using ledger's virtual postings. This will let us compare real
expenses and income with budget at all points in time.
> 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?
> 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.
In fact, now that I think of it, maybe the DPL would be best suited
in the controller's role?
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany: http://debconf15.debconf.org
DebConf16 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)