Hi Alexandro,
j...@openoffice.org wrote on 2010-01-23 17.08:
Well I am not sure why one has to do with the other. I mean, is not like
decision makers have to stop to make decisions while they work on a
proposal. But we have 4 decision makers, I am sure delegation shouldnt
be a problem.
Exactly. I doubt it would make much sense this year to stop making
decisions, as many important things are coming up.
I have asked myself that question earlier last year where there is
really no clear criteria to mention what to fund. There were ideas that
could expand the concept fo funding events however they were rapidly
isolated and treated like a "special request" rather than focusing on a
policy making framework.
I think at the moment this is no real problem, as all funding requests
have been granted and there has been enough money left. However, I
agree, we need some sort of guidelines. I'm currently drafting a
document where I use this term, gudielines. We already have a policy we
are bound to, the general Community Council funding policies --
everything else we set up depends on them, and I would like to have some
flexibility and not more rules that restrict us. Thus, the term guidelines.
Give me some more time until I can publish a first draft.
Wasn't John the budget holder, or is that being change now?
John and I switched roles also on the budget process, so you first have
to struggle with me now. ;-)
I really dont see what or wheere is the problem here, I gave Louis a
good list just a few days after he request it and then he just drop the
ball or went completely silent on it. I think this should be developed
I don't know, only that it's on the council agenda. Ping Louis and ask
him. However, the calendar would be a nice-to-have, but it is not
binding for funding requests, neither does it delay the guidelines I'm
drafting, so I don't think it's too urgent. However, I agree, having it
would be nice.
On a different note I expect much more new events to fund this year
specially for NLC and others. Important question is if Marketing will be
the event that funds all meetings. NLC don't have a budget and is 50% of
the community. If the OOo Groups start picking up like the Scandinavian
one or the North America, meetings will need to be created and funding
will be needed.
Again a decision would need to be made if this is a marketing,
development or infrastructure spense?
I think it depends on each case. Like for FOSDEM, we agreed to fund the
speakers out of the development budget, and collaterals and other staff
members from the marketing budget. I doubt we need strict rules here, it
worked out fine in the past. Too many rules make working complicated. If
we see that there are problems, we can still improvde rules and
guidelines, but at the moment, I don't see any real problems, so we
should focus on the actual events, not on what-might-be's.
The way I see it, there are two levels of to see it, it could be a
Global Marketing decision or a NLC marketing decision. For example Cebit
is a very local european event that dont benefit marketing wise to OOoES
for example, yet is very important to OOo DE. However OSWC and
Latinoware is very important for OOoES community but not as important to
the whole OOo.
Again, I think it depends on each case. It's hard to distinguish between
global and local events, as every event is local somehow. If it helps
the cause and can be considered as marketing-relevant and helps the
community marketing efforts, it can basically be funded out of our budget.
I don't think that this has proven very efficient in the past because
the requests have been basically the same but the questioning had vary a
lot from one to the other by the bdget authorizers. To prevent this, I
would consider writing down what are the basic requisit when consider a
funding for traveling, and a seperate one on budgeting for events.
I agree on that, indeed. A requisite will not ensure that a request gets
funded, but it can help the budget holder and authorizers to process
them faster. I'd also love to have something in it like "for
collaterals, if possible, ask for donations" so these donations go back
to the marketing budget.
Also the funding cap are very irrelevant with reality (I think it was
300), this is great for Europe, not so great for America. Traveling cost
varies widely in Europe since they have cheap budget airlines while the
options are largely limited in North and South America (still not sure
about Asia but my guess is that it is).
Where have we applied a funding cap in the past? I only recall these
from OOoCons because of the mass of requests.
I think you can start by adopting the one I sent to louis and assign a
space on the wiki.
Feel free to do so.
So, in short: I'm working on a draft for some guidelines -- but they are
not more than that, guidelines. I'm against more policies, because
policies make things complicated. The intended guidelines shall help the
budget holder and authorizers in deciding and should show the marketing
project which requests can be funded. However, the guidelines will be no
strict policies -- we may disagree on some requests, and accept others
that do not fulfill all of the guidelines.
However, looking at the past, I think we will work it out. I can't
recall major problems with funding, other than some delayed responses...
Florian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
