Thanks for your replies! I still need to go through all the interesting links from that plain text accounting page, so that might change my mind, but I hope they keep at least the existing budget functionality. I see the existing budget tool as just a way to plan out the future state of your accounts – so perfectly appropriate for anyone.
Though you are right, it doesn’t enforce double entry so it is different from the core use of Gnucash. Thanks and regards, Matt From: Wm via gnucash-devel<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, 4 February 2018 11:57 PM To: gnucash-de...@lists.gnucash.org<mailto:gnucash-de...@lists.gnucash.org> Subject: Re: Future allocated money, aka Envelope Budgeting On 03/02/2018 00:12, Matt Graham wrote: > Wow! That become contentious quick!!! Only sort of. If you read the devel list before the user list you get a feeling for what isn't going to happen soon and why. > The primary issue I’m seeing here is one of philosophy. What is GNUCash for? > What is the purpose? What “should” be included and what “shouldn’t” be? It is for people, of course ! Perhaps you meant, "who is it for?" :) There is a universe of people that like, use and prefer single entry accounting along with the budgeting spiritualism and personal mantras that accompany some of them. gnc ain't that and may not be for them. Let me mention something else I think should, for example, be removed once the db is sorted out: USA and other country specific tax stuff (I'm not even sure how much of it works any more as governments change their tax systems without consulting gnc, etc) Double entry accounting has been around for a while, that is definitely going to be included for ever. Budgeting is, as I said before, personal. It varies from person to person (I think envelope budgeting is short sighted) and what is appropriate for a person is inappropriate for more formal organisations that might require auditing or oversight. If *all* the myriad of wonderful budgeting weirdness was added to gnc the prog would more than double in size in a year ... each year ... and 3 people would be using each of the special budgets and another 2 requests would come in each year, etc. It just doesn't make sense putting more into an over stretched db compared to an interface that anyone can grab anything they want from using an ordinary spreadsheet. Am I making sense? gnc isn't for a person of a certain nationality, it should work for most gnc isn't for a person or an organisation, it should work for most gnc isn't for a charity vs a business, it should work for most gnc isn't for a country, it works with currencies etc > As has been highlighted, when someone loads up software they have a preset > notion in their own mind of how it “should” work, and that is usually their > own very narrow context (e.g. “That’s not how budgets work!”). gnc's existing budgeting is very useful to some businesses and charity organisations, even though I use them in that context I still think they should be pulled out in the long term. Budgeting is too idiosyncratic. And anyway, given a good interface you could use, I could probably write a budget app a day. NB: budgeting is not complicated computing, it is largely a human problem rather than a computing one. > My assumption on purpose: Open source software is created out of need and > altruism. People who know how and want help create and maintain the project > both because they are interested in software and enjoy the process, but also > because they like being altruistic and providing something that others find > useful. I won't speak for seniors, I do read what they say. Of course, my understanding is mine if incorrect. > Based on that assumption, I have had the attitude “All requests should be > considered and prioritised by the devs, but of course they will mainly > implement what they find useful and of course they will only give how much > time they can afford to”. devs may be busy, devs may have a long list, devs may have lives aside from the project, etc > The natural flow on from my attitude is that I should indeed throw in what I > want/need from my financial tools, but not expect anyone to act on it. If I > want it done, I need to donate my time and implement it because it is > definitely unreasonable to demand others to do it when it isn’t useful for > them. (On that note, I’m keen to help out, but don’t yet have knowledge (and > also struggle for time) in all this). > The problem with gnc code at the moment is that there is very little most people (or at least I) can do coding wise until the seniors get their stuff done. Monitoring the user list, knowing accounting, understanding stuff, these are all useful things to do. > I have lots of specific comments against what people are saying, but all > would be unhelpful if my fundamental attitude to the project is wrong. Take the time to read something like https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplaintextaccounting.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5d299c80e8644c0e0b2d08d56bcec7a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636533458218288521&sdata=1WdQ%2Bm%2BS7AquWJj8qcbmSmqk%2BEo4wlian5tNTJkpbjo%3D&reserved=0 I see gnc as part of the family, others don't because gnc *has* *a* *user* *interface* :) it can get odd. happy reading -- Wm _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list email@example.com https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnucash.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnucash-devel&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5d299c80e8644c0e0b2d08d56bcec7a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636533458218288521&sdata=r1BMC7lAGyZWffWrBR5vOjgaKWnqGomrpiWohTJmMRg%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel