On 25/08/15 at 20:22 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > So how does the following process sound? > > 1. Bursaries (and all other teams for themselves) gauges the > amount of money they'd like to have in their budget. This > is difficult and will take a few iterations, especially since > we're all new at this, so let's not wait too long… > > 2. We try to allocate budgeted funds in a sensible way, and > get the result approved as the first budget. > > 3. Now the teams can work within the funds available and progress > can be made on all fronts. While the income situation is > unclear, some positions will be budgeted more conservatively > than others, but things can keep moving, or at least it's clear > what can and cannot be done while not enough funds have been > raised. > > 4. When teams encounter that their needs are outside of budget, > they apply for a budget extension. In the case of the day trip > or entertainment, the answer might only be yes if the income > situation allows for it (requests should be processed > altogether at defined points in time). But in the case of e.g. > video team or travel sponsorship needs, Debian funds might get > allocated if the DC fundraising income does not provide for it.
For the record (not that it matters much :-) ), that matches quite well how I hope the Debconf budget will work in the future. > Does this sound like something we could try? I wonder if it would help things a bit to have each time work with an specific interval of money they could receive. For example, the outreach team could say 'To do something useful, we need at least $1000 [sponsor one attendee], and I don't see how we could need more than $6000.' That's slightly more work for the teams because they need to think about the hypothesis of receiving more money, but that's something they should do anyway. Lucas _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
