Dear PLC,
Thank you to everyone who came to the budget meeting yesterday. It was quite a busy and intense discussion, even for this high level overview meeting. Big thanks to pono from the SFC for assisting and giving us some solid information.
Attendees: Tav, Marc, Chris, Josh, Martin, René, Jabier, Ishaan, Pono Meeting Chair: Martin The video meeting is recorded here: https://digimedia1.r2.enst.fr/playback/presentation/2.3/80b082be7c60e7a1fd9b... 1 hour 12 minutes
We've set a budget of between $80k and $175k for 2022. We expect to spend at least $80k and the feeling was that it's time for us to stop growing our hoard of money and start spending it.
The project has many needs, which we currently ask volunteers to do. But many of these tasks are things we need and shouldn't depend on waiting for volunteers, so the basic principle was put forward that "if the project is asking for the work to be done, then the project should be paying for it." This was used a guideline to find items we should be budgeting for.
Attached you will find the earmarks that we created for each section of the budget. There are some notes:
1. The release manager stipend isn't currently needed, Marc's employer is kindly covering this expense and it's noted here in case we need to have this item in consideration for future budgets. 2. We have one Outreachy internship unused from last cycle, this coming year we will likely only need at most one more. This earmark should cover that. 3. We lack a documentation lead, or any contributor able to step up and look after documentation. If there's anyone you can remember from the past who'd be interested in getting involved, we've earmarked a small budget to help with costs for that area should we need it.
Each of the items require another meeting to discuss their details further. This is especially true of the two big ticket items for the admin and the developer budget. Please do come to these meetings, which will be help via video again and recorded for transparency. Dates are attached.
Again, a big thank you to everyone. Taking our budgeting responsibilities seriously has been a high priority for us in the leadership committee and it's great to finally feel like we are starting to see the wheels move.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Dec 10 2021, at 2:01 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
The project has many needs, which we currently ask volunteers to do. But many of these tasks are things we need and shouldn't depend on waiting for volunteers, so the basic principle was put forward that "if the project is asking for the work to be done, then the project should be paying for it." This was used a guideline to find items we should be budgeting for.
I think this is a dangerous policy, as it actively discourages volunteering. Why would I volunteer when I could be paid? Should I have a budget for writing this email? Is it something I think the project needs? What you've defined there is a company, not a community oriented project. I think a more appropriate measure is that we should fund things that empower our members to be effective at achieving their goals on the project. Keeping focus on Inkscape members and helping them makes sure that we keep or focus on the most important thing, the community that is around the project. We should break down the barriers for those folks.
- The release manager stipend isn't currently needed, Marc's employer
is kindly covering this expense and it's noted here in case we need to have this item in consideration for future budgets.
Marc, do you know if your HR would give a number for the effective cost to them? Not just your salary, but the cost of benefits, payroll taxes, vacation, etc. that they are effectively donating. Not sure about how that works in the French public sector, but usually US companies have an estimate there. It would be useful to know/track.
- We have one Outreachy internship unused from last cycle, this
coming year we will likely only need at most one more. This earmark should cover that.
If we think we are going to do two Outreachy interns a year I think it'd be better to budget that and then record a credit from the previous year. It'll make it easier to see year over year.
- We lack a documentation lead, or any contributor able to step up
and look after documentation. If there's anyone you can remember from the past who'd be interested in getting involved, we've earmarked a small budget to help with costs for that area should we need it.
This seems weird to me. If we have no idea what we're going to do and who is going to do it, suggesting there should be money for it seems backwards. Not against documentation in general, but just throwing money on a spreadsheet doesn't do anything. It feels "money lead" instead of "community lead." I would hate for someone to join the project with the sole purpose to spend money.
Each of the items require another meeting to discuss their details further. This is especially true of the two big ticket items for the admin and the developer budget.
Great to see how this breaks down, the numbers here seem pretty arbitrary right now. I think that we should have justification for our numbers. Certainly not down the penny, but some idea of why we came up with the number that we did as part of the documentation. There currently isn't enough information in the document to understand or comment on the specific amounts or line items. Also, could you attach editable versions of attachments? We're OSS, we don't accept only compiled versions 😉 Personally, I like attaching PDFs as well because they're easier to read on a small screen like a phone, but the source document is the most important. Ted
On Dec 10 2021, at 9:26 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 20:37 -0600, Ted Gould wrote:
we should have justification for our numbers.
Please see the video for full details and the follow up meeting for the more constructed details.
LOL. That's like saying all code is self-documenting. I think the bare-minimum is writing things down. Ted
LOL. That's like saying all code is self-documenting. I think the bare-minimum is writing things down.
No, you've just been told where you can RTFM the full details (yes in this case it's a video) and you responded with "that's beneath me". Maybe next time you try to take an active part in the actual conversation instead of backseat-moderating things after the fact. </rant>
What we've discussed in the meeting is not perfect and I think everyone knows that. You're also not the only one with concerns about the (mid/longterm) effects of money vs voluntary engagement. However, we are in a constant stalemate and want to break out of it. We're not a bank, our donators expect us to do something with the money they give us. We want to try something new.
To be absolutely clear: it's not the goal to turn Inkscape into a free-for-all-come-have-some-money type of thing. The project identifies areas where we want to push foward and where no volunteers are stepping up to do the job. If you think we're taking on more than we should in a first step, let's discuss that. IMHO we should be able to find consensus on at least one single thing where we try to throw a little money at. And it should not be something easily agreeable like Outreachy but something hard where we can gather valuable experience from, like something e.g. documentation or development related. We’re not setting anything in stone here.
It is important that we argue about these things. It probably doesn't translate well for what I want to express, but "arguing" is meant in a positive way, as in "the best solution doesn't just present itself by itself, we have to work for it". So please, be there the next time.
René
Am 11.12.2021 um 07:50 schrieb Ted Gould ted@gould.cx:
On Dec 10 2021, at 9:26 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote: On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 20:37 -0600, Ted Gould wrote:
we should have justification for our numbers.
Please see the video for full details and the follow up meeting for the more constructed details.
LOL. That's like saying all code is self-documenting. I think the bare-minimum is writing things down.
Ted
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
On Dec 11 2021, at 1:47 pm, René de Hesselle dehesselle@icloud.com wrote:
LOL. That's like saying all code is self-documenting. I think the bare-minimum is writing things down.
No, you've just been told where you can RTFM the full details (yes in this case it's a video) and you responded with "that's beneath me".
When we eventually have a referendum on a budget all discussion about it won't matter. Including any email or any chat log. The only thing that is relevant is the text in the referendum itself. That needs to explain.
Maybe next time you try to take an active part in the actual conversation instead of backseat-moderating things after the fact. </rant>
If you're suggesting that we have a process where the only way to contribute or criticize it is to attend a synchronous video call it is a discriminatory one. I hope that's not what you're suggesting.
It is important that we argue about these things. It probably doesn't translate well for what I want to express, but "arguing" is meant in a positive way, as in "the best solution doesn't just present itself by itself, we have to work for it". So please, be there the next time.
I agree that there is lots of room for discussion and I'm excited about new ideas being brought forward. I think that discussion needs to be inclusive. Also, something doesn't need to be in the budget for us to do it. The budget is quite simply guidance and a way to track our spending. It should be representative of what we have reasonable plans to do. I hope that we're able to do more projects than we budget for. Ted
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021, 02:37 Ted Gould ted@gould.cx wrote:
On Dec 10 2021, at 2:01 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
The project has many needs, which we currently ask volunteers to do. But many of these tasks are things we need and shouldn't depend on waiting for volunteers, so the basic principle was put forward that "if the project is asking for the work to be done, then the project should be paying for it." This was used a guideline to find items we should be budgeting for.
I think this is a dangerous policy, as it actively discourages volunteering. Why would I volunteer when I could be paid? Should I have a budget for writing this email? Is it something I think the project needs? What you've defined there is a company, not a community oriented project.
I understand this fear, but I think it doesn't give our volunteers enough credit. The answer that jumps to my mind when asked "Why should I volunteer when I could be paid?" is "Because it makes the Free software I use better for myself and for everyone in the world." Not being paid for a thing would not discourage me from doing it. The prospect of payment for the release video was brought up during this meeting. I would certainly try to do a video anyway, just as I've done in previous years. It's just that payment in this case means that I can dedicate more time to it, and spend more time getting feedback from the group in the early stages, as I've done for other FOSS projects. Currently it's very much a "what do I have time to throw together", rather than "What do we want to do with this next release video".
Even reading the hypothetical "How much should I charge for writing this email" - it would sound absurd coming from anyone in the project. As a fun thought experiment, though: If the project decides that Ted's email activities are essential to the functioning of Inkscape, and Ted doesn't have time otherwise, then I see no problem with paying for that, or even some stipend to be able to see more of Ted at the video meetings. ;) The point is, if the project needs something, and that something doesn't have any volunteers, or can't be done on time in a volunteer's spare time, then the project should use donations to improve those areas in lieu of volunteer work.
Moreover, since donated time is contingent on people's spare time in many cases, and people lose time for things, it's prudent to have a portion of the budget ready to fill in those areas with paid work to compensate.
These are my thoughts on it. -C
Maybe next time you try to take an active part in the actual conversation instead of backseat-moderating things after the fact. </rant>
If you're suggesting that we have a process where the only way to contribute or criticize it is to attend a synchronous video call it is a discriminatory one. I hope that's not what you're suggesting.
I don't think that's what's being suggested. Posting a video recording of a video meeting is analogous to posting the log of the rocket-chat meeting. If one cannot attend for whatever reason, one can then watch the video to hear and see the entire meeting. Moveover, you get the intended feelings, meanings and connections in ways you don't with a text-only version. These are certainly nice extras. Not everyone has time for potentially lengthy email correspondence, so video meetings are a more efficient way for conversation to take place, and it's much easier to feel out the room. No one is suggesting that conversation should take place here exclusively, with the caveat that if you ask for information that was already discussed in the meeting (be it video, or text), you may be asked to reference the source material. If someone is having trouble accessing or playing the video, we can look into options to help that person out. Unless that's happening somewhere, and the technological requirements are not insurmountable, then video meetings are not discriminatory, IMHO.
-C
Sorry to go AWOL this week, got sick and I'm now catching up. On Dec 13 2021, at 3:06 am, C R cajhne@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe next time you try to take an active part in the actual conversation instead of backseat-moderating things after the fact. </rant>
If you're suggesting that we have a process where the only way to contribute or criticize it is to attend a synchronous video call it is a discriminatory one. I hope that's not what you're suggesting.
I don't think that's what's being suggested.
That's my only concern, as long as it isn't the only way people can contribute. I think that video will work for some folks. And synchronous meetings have value. But we can't assume they're best for everyone. If we want to get a wide range of inputs and ideas we can't leave them as the only way to contribute. Ted
participants (4)
-
C R -
Martin Owens -
René de Hesselle -
Ted Gould