To summarize some IRC thoughts I wrote:

I think the appeal of set goals for money and patrons is understandable
but problematic. Projects and patrons are *shitty* at determining these
things. The majority of patrons will be *wrong* about their predictions
about how they'll feel about their budget in the long-term even. The
point of the budget is to just give them needed control and assurance.

We want people to say "I'm in" for the vision and stay involved and see
where things go, staying in as they like the progress and providing
feedback and dropping if unhappy.

The setting of hard goals creates anchor points, pass/fail judgments,
and lots more issues. If these approaches were fundamentally bad, we
wouldn't see them so commonly. But if they really worked well, we
wouldn't see so many problems related to such things.

The deepest, broadest version of could probably spend $1
million per month on all worthwhile things. The reality is that we will
probably *operate* for a long while with less funds than we even ought
to have for reliable comfortable basic operations. Drawing lines between
those is going to be based on much less information than we'd like to
have. I think it should stick to only casual "we could probably do X
with Y funds" as a vague statement of intentions rather than a decision
with ramifications about how much people donate to us.

That's my feeling right now about these things.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to