On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > Depends how you want to look at it, since the dollar bills aren't color > > coded or anything. But the last budget I bothered to look at (which I > > believe is the one before the last one released) was underspent in the > area > > of technology and overspent in other areas. So I think it's valid to say > > that "tech money was spent on other things". As I said, I didn't even > > bother looking at the last budget. After hearing Sue admit that the one > I'm > > talking about was padded, there was little point. > > There were explanations for all those over- and under-spends. I > considered them all to be good explanations. I would have to look at > the report again to be sure, but I think there was a better than > budgeted surplus in the year you are talking about, so the reason for > not spending the full tech budget wasn't lack of funds from having > spent them elsewhere. Regardless, I wish they had spent the full tech budget, hired an experienced CTO, and fixed the dumps. Plus a bunch of other things (I don't think single-user-login had yet been implemented, and I'm pretty sure most of the more advanced features which supposedly depended on single-user-login like cross-project watchlists still haven't been implemented). As you said, whether or not that would have happened given a different board structure, who knows. But I think there's a chance it would have been better. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
