Perfect, we discussed this further on the PR and we got to a point where everyone agrees on the text: https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/1295/files/0afa73d1d25975ff01271ca7096d242be377ee30..ccfe7c6e0395e8f0a3287f5c6519bea80fdc03fb
Thank you to everyone for chiming in and helping in drafting this new bylaw. I'll be calling a vote shortly. Il giorno giovedì 24 agosto 2023 alle 13:27:42 UTC+2 vin...@delau.nl ha scritto: > For new expenses, there most likely will be more of a discussion up front > on why we need to spend money, what the requirements are and which is the > best supplier for the FIG. For existing expenses, there might arise some > discussion if something is still needed or if there are other alternatives > that may work better. In both these scenarios, the potential changes to the > approved expenses is more of a side-effect and there already is some > discussion going on. In my opinion, having a longer process around new > expenses is not a big burden. Ideally we could just do Implicit Approvals > here as well, but I'd rather have a safeguard in place. > > With recurring expenses, there is a high likelihood that prices over time > will change. That is not an issue that you would have for one-time > expenses. Rising prices could trigger the type of discussions mentioned > above, but I expect these to be rare. For that reason, having a 'fast > track' solution for this seems appropriate. I think either Implicit > Approval or over-budgeting (approving more than needed) are good solutions > for this. > > Regards, > Vincent > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:52:10 AM UTC+2 Alessandro Lai wrote: > >> We could set a cap on which implicit is acceptable; something like 25$. >> I'm undecided about recurring expenses though: should we treat them >> differently in regards of implicit acceptance? >> >> Il giorno mercoledì 23 agosto 2023 alle 23:25:25 UTC+2 Larry Garfield ha >> scritto: >> >>> We could go Implicit Approval on most expenses, probably, given how few >>> there are. Secretaries post to the list saying "we're gonna spend $20 on >>> the domain name." If any CC member objects, we call a vote. If no one >>> objects after a week, Secretaries go ahead and spend $20. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023, at 12:02 PM, Ken Guest wrote: >>> > An Implicit Approval procedure with wording similar to what you >>> > provided seems ideal. >>> > >>> > At least then for non-extraordinary expenditure nothing should get >>> > delayed due to, for example, some participants not noticing an email >>> > soon enough. >>> > >>> > Kind regards >>> > >>> > Ken >>> > >>> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 at 12:32, Vincent de Lau <vin...@delau.nl> wrote: >>> >> Hi Alessandro, >>> >> >>> >> In my opinion the bylaw text itself is complete. >>> >> >>> >> I would review the initial expenditure approval before going to a >>> vote and check that it covers expected price increases. I'd rather have a >>> small margin in the approved expenses, than having to hold rushed votes >>> every year. For example, I would not be opposed to approve a 25 USD limit >>> each for domains and email. >>> >> >>> >> Alternatively, we could have an Implicit Approval procedure for >>> previously approved recurring expense items that have gone up in price >>> (within reason, for instance 'following economic and market trends'). >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Vincent >>> >> >>> >> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:03:10 AM UTC+2 Alessandro Lai >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone. >>> >>> Namecheap emailed us to notify us a "universal price increases of up >>> to 9% for .COM renewals", and that prompted me to restart this >>> conversation. >>> >>> We just renewed the domains last June, so we're not in a hurry, but >>> if this passes we will need time to set up everything, so I would prefer to >>> get it done ASAP. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd like to push this bylaw to a vote soon, but I'm open to further >>> suggestions to refine the text. >>> >>> If there isn't none, I'll open the vote in a couple of weeks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Il giorno martedì 18 aprile 2023 alle 17:22:48 UTC+2 Alessandro Lai >>> ha scritto: >>> >>>> I've answered or addressed it. I don't know if I can word it any >>> better, can you help me further, if you think it's necessary? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Il giorno mercoledì 12 aprile 2023 alle 19:19:35 UTC+2 >>> mweiero...@gmail.com ha scritto: >>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 9:47 AM Alessandro Lai < >>> alessand...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Thank you Matthew, I've addressed your comments, you can review >>> it again now. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Sent another review your way... getting closer! >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Il giorno lunedì 3 aprile 2023 alle 15:45:05 UTC+2 >>> mweiero...@gmail.com ha scritto: >>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 8:43 AM Alessandro Lai < >>> alessand...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>> >>>>>>>> I would like to revive the discussion here. I've done all the >>> changes on the PR, and the issues on the mailing list seems to be gone. >>> There were a couple of deleted messages in this thread, so please chime >>> back in if your position is not clear here. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> If no one objects or has further suggestions, I would like to >>> put this to a vote in a short time, to avoid going against the election >>> period, which would be in May. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> I've left a review. I think the first few sections need to be >>> simplified tremendously. On a first read, the first few sections feel very >>> contradictory, and it takes a few reads to understand the intent. It needs >>> to be simplified so that those reading can understand immediately what the >>> intent is, and how the by-law is structured to get there. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Il giorno lunedì 6 marzo 2023 alle 12:35:01 UTC+1 Alessandro >>> Lai ha scritto: >>> >>>>>>>>> I should report back what was said on Discord about this >>> matter. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> I said that handing over our money problems to a single >>> sponsor puts us in a bad position, because: >>> >>>>>>>>> - we should avoid handling money personally (secretaries >>> shouldn't have financial/fiscal impact due to money going around) >>> >>>>>>>>> - previous point could be handled with the sponsor paying >>> directly, but that's not always feasible.. we can't give them access to all >>> the needed accounts! (i.e. the NameCheap one) >>> >>>>>>>>> - the sponsor could drop us at any time, unannounced, >>> especially when a payment is due, which brings us back to square one >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Korvin then voiced opposition against collecting money, or >>> more specifically against asking for donation; I can understand this, and I >>> would then prefer to struck down any piece of the bylaw that endorse this. >>> I'm open to even deny that, so that our only source of money are >>> organization like TideLift, that collect money from private, for-profit >>> entities, so that we can sustain ourselves, pay for more stuff (like >>> trademarking our name) and that's all. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Korvin, would this resolve your doubts? >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> PS: we received money on Thanks.dev from Sentry today :-/ we >>> need to sort this out! >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Il giorno lunedì 27 febbraio 2023 alle 07:31:28 UTC+1 >>> korvin...@gmail.com ha scritto: >>> >>>>>>>>>> I understand that our expenses are under $100/yr total, >>> Concrete CMS would be happy to cover that cost moving forward! >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't really get how asking for donations contributes to >>> our mission as an organization. Can you speak how it does and to what you >>> intend to spend extra funds on specifically? To me this sounds against the >>> spirit of our organization and feels like a big mistake. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>>>>>>> Korvin >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 5:05 AM Tim Düsterhus < >>> t...@bastelstu.be> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/23 00:03, Alessandro Lai wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > I had the idea of proposing a "funding" bylaw for quite >>> some time, >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > especially because, as a secretary, I had to see the >>> domains or the email >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > account nearly expire multiple times during this year, and >>> finding a >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > permanent solution to that issue is something that I want. >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the domain expiry I can recommend choosing a >>> registrar that >>> >>>>>>>>>>> supports multi-year registrations to avoid the hassle of >>> renewing >>> >>>>>>>>>>> domains on short notice (and possibly forgetting entirely). >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> All my important personal domains and all $dayjob domains >>> using a TLD >>> >>>>>>>>>>> that supports multi-year registrations are registered for >>> the next five >>> >>>>>>>>>>> years or so *and* are yearly topped up by another year. That >>> way there's >>> >>>>>>>>>>> always a 5-year headroom if something goes wrong (e.g. the >>> registrar >>> >>>>>>>>>>> going out of business). >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> In fact it appears that the current registrar "Namecheap" >>> does support >>> >>>>>>>>>>> multi-year registrations: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> https://www.namecheap.com/support/knowledgebase/article.aspx/770/35/is-it-possible-to-registerrenew-a-domain-name-for-more-than-10-years/ >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tim Düsterhus >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/492880c5-edbf-47e0-8ba3-1bbdff3869b5n%40googlegroups.com.
