Hi, I'm moving here a discussion that started on IRC about the budget approval process.
First, I'd like to state that we need to be a bit flexible about the budget. We will only have the final budget (final numbers) after DC15. We don't know yet how much will be raised, nor how many attendees there will be. Until after DC15 (or shortly before DC15), we can only work on projections. It is likely, due to timing issues, that DC15 will have to borrow money from Debian (e.g. because some advance payment is due before sponsorship money is received). In order to authorize this, it is normal for the DPL to be given a global picture about the DebConf budget: the question the DPL needs to answer is "is the budget sane enough to move forward, or am I putting Debian funds at risk by backing DC15 using Debian funds?" I understand that you are at the point that you have something ready to review. That's great! :-) 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) - 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. In the presented budget, I'd like to see some elements about "risk handling": What would happen if we raised 30% less than expected, 20% less than expected, 10% less than expected? And the answer should probably not be "oh, Debian will naturally pay the difference from its reserves" or "we will remove all travel sponsorship from our budget". This part doesn't need to be very detailed. A list of possible cost saving moves, with estimate savings, and priorities, would be enough. FAQ: Q: Why aren't the chairs delegated to approve the budget? A: The reason is that approving the budget usually means approving the use of Debian money (to partially fund DebConf). Concretely, it would mean authorizing an unlimited use of Debian money. Q: Does every change to the budget need to go through that process? A: Minor changes don't need to. Major changes need to. I let chairs decide on what is "minor" or "major". Basically, it boils down to: "what changes are the chairs comfortable with approving themselves, which also means being responsible for?". I would also expect all changes that touch more than 10k€, or that increase the needed amount of Debian money, to be presented to the DPL. Q: So why involve the chairs at all? A: The chairs are the ones trusted by the project to know what organizing DebConf involves, so they are the best placed to advise the DPL on whether the proposed budget makes sense. Q: Isn't the process too complex? A: I don't think so. Informing the team feels quite natural. Using chairs as proxy too. If there's a discussion between the budget team and chairs about some aspects, the thread can simply be forwarded to the DPL to avoid repeating the same arguments when the budget is presented to the DPL. Lucas _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
