[Debian-sponsors-discuss] How do we decide how non-earmarked funds are spent?

[Brian Gupta]

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas at debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 29/05/13 at 17:03 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
>> This might be more detailed of a question than this phase warrants,
>> but it's probably important enough to include.
>>
>> (Assuming DebConf fundraising gets split between purpose-driven and
>> general fundraising efforts)
>> Proposed: Have Debian roughly match the discount we give to sponsors
>> for event sponsorships if needed (bgupta)
>>
>> Additional thoughts and proposals and feedback welcome.
>
> Note that this is partly covered by the Debian Constitution:
>
> 5. Project Leader
>
> 5.1. Powers
>
> [...]
>
> 10. In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting property
> held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.). Such decisions
> are communicated to the members by the Project Leader or their
> Delegate(s). Major expenditures should be proposed and debated on the
> mailing list before funds are disbursed.
>
> Lucas

Agreed. My apologies for not being more clear.

To clarify where I was going with this, currently the
debconf-(sponsors)-team is supposed to raise 100% of the funds
required to hold debconf. Basically, I believe the rough understanding
is, if they raise it, and the budget is sane, they can spend it. (Of
course with appropriate approvals, which generally I believe are only
a concern if debconf-team wants to spend more than they have raised
yet, or have a realistic possibility of raising.)

If we moved any significant amount of the fundraising to non-earmarked
fundraising (from the sponsor's pov), we'd probably still want to
internally earmark a large portion of those funds for DebConf,
otherwise we'd be making the job of those setting the budgets and
raising funds for the conference *a lot* harder. An understanding with
all fundraising and budgetary teams would need to be hammered out
before making the transition, or we would risk demotivating people
doing the work. (We'd also have to give our sponsors plenty of warning
if we were to do any significant changes here. IE: At least a year,
and perhaps two in advance. Don't worry, there are plenty of things
that won't take that long to accomplish.)

To give you an example of what I mean here, one of the ideas I was
thinking about, was moving at least half of the DebConf fundraising
(for repeat sponsors) to general fundraising, which would be at fixed
tiers. In exchange we could give "Debian sponsors" a potentially
significant discount on DebConf sponsorship. To make this work, there
would need to be an understanding among the fundraising team and the
debconf team, of what money that had been moved to general fundraising
was internally earmarked for DebConf.

That all said, I'm think that my initial feeling, that this is
probably too detailed an idea for this phase of the discussion, was
probably correct and we don't want to unfairly prioritize my idea
above other's ideas. (e.g. - moving all fundraising to non-earmarked
donations, or making no changes other than recognizing debconf
sponsors as Debian Sponsors)

So, if no one disagrees, I'll ask that perhaps that this particular
thread be closed for the moment.