Write proposal to update the conference spending policy
These questions were in @aday's mail from the Board mailing list in August 15 (FIXME: how to link to board list archives?)
During yesterday's meeting, we approved the budget for GUADEC 2019. That budget was arranged into three scenarios: "estimated low", "expected", "estimated high". During the call, I asked which of these scenarios we were approving. The response was: "all of them". I got the impression that each spending scenario would be linked to income.
After the meeting I got thinking about this, and I have some issues/questions:
-
The arrangement I've described above isn't documented anywhere, including in the GUADEC 2019 budget. To me, "estimated low", "expected" and "estimated high" does not communicate the arrangement that was described during the meeting.
-
Does the GUADEC team know what we expect in terms of their budget?
-
I'm sceptical that GUADEC teams are capable of organising their operational budgets according to tiers of spending. In practice it seems easier to have a single operational budget, where you balance expenditure against income. Projected low and highs are useful from a planning perspective but are complex to keep up to date when things are in motion.
-
We have a rule that conferences can't spend more than they've raised in income. This seems to negate the need for spending bands.
-
How is expenditure linked to income in cases where the board has approved a conference to make a loss (like GUADEC 2019)? This doesn't seem to be covered by our conference spending policy.
-
The banded approach is certainly useful from a projection and planning perspective, but it seems vague from a governance point of view. It's not clear what expenditure limits we actually approved yesterday. I future, I think I would prefer for us to approve a single set of numbers - perhaps by voting on the "estimated high" as a top threshold.