Talk:2015 Budget Vote

Subject to change, please do not discuss

This wiki page is a work in progress, and as such is not representative of what will be voted on by the membership. Please save all comments and discussions until we have actually announced that it is ready to be discussed. (justin via hef, perhaps inaccurately)

Nope.

Sorry, going to discuss it anyway. --Hef (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2014 (CST)

Misrepresented

I added some comments I though represented justin's opinion fairly and accurately. He disagrees. Take from that what you will. The comments I attributed to him above may not reflect how he actually feels on the related topics. --Hef (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2014 (CST)

Area hosts versus the membership

I understand that this is still in progress, but I'm concerned that as-written, this budget already apportions nearly a third of our projected excess funds to area host expenditures, and doesn't yet have numbers for five of the areas. I understand the desire for area hosts to have spending power to improve the space, but I generally prefer to err towards having the membership making the bulk of our decisions, through votes. Handing too much financial decision-making power to any individual starts to take the power of decision from the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbever (talk • contribs) 09:04, Dec 18, 2014

You are correct that this is still in progress. This is using the numbers that the area hosts asked for so far, not what they will necessarily get. There are certainly a few things that already need trimmed. Justin (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2014 (CST)

SEM and other projects

I think I'd like to see the SEM (and any other similar projects now or in the future) get funds from a vote seperate from the annual budget. Putting projects that folks might not want to fund under the umbrella of the annual budget makes it difficult for members to actually make choices about how the space spends its money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbever (talk • contribs) 14:28, Dec 21, 2014

We need to plan for things we know we'll spend money on

I understand your concerns, but I think it's pretty naive to believe that we aren't going to end up spending money on the SEM. I would much rather spend it on regular maintenance than continue to have to pay for costly repairs (as we're doing now). And if we're expecting to spend money on it anyways, I see no reason not to include it in the plan of money we expect to spend instead of pretending to ignore it. At any rate, the SEM is not actually being considered as its own department in this budget. We only have a separate sheet because we asked Ryan to make one. The SEM falls under the General Area Host budget, and as such I, as the General Area Host, choose to include it in my budget. Justin (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Member Projects Should Standalone

I feel that projects should have to defend themselves, and not be batched as part of a larger vote. The SEM is just so unrelated from everything else on this proposal.

I fully expect that things like the SEM should factor into an estimated cost of being PS:One, but member projects should not get spending authorization bundled with toilet paper and paper towels. It reeks of being a rider on a larger vote.

To the SEM people, please don't take this personally. I also argued to have a new server hardware budget be an independent vote, something I have a vested interest in. I expect the yearly financial planning to take both projects into account when planning the year, but I want spending authorization to remain in the hands of the membership and each subject to gaining general approval independent from the space's necessities. --Hef (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Mixed Messages

Including potentially contentious issues as a part of the larger budget vote makes it impossible for members to discuss those expenses and legitimately consider whether they want the organization to continue spending money on them. Saying "It's just inevitable" is disingenous and not really a valid response to that concern.--Dbever (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Discussion still works

Why would it be impossible for members to discuss these expenses? The entire budget will be made available for members to review before the vote, as per the regular vote procedure. --Sylphiae (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (CST)

It is very hard to vote no on the overall budget if you disagree with one point. The discussion of the value of putting money towards the SEM is very overshadowed by discussion over the entire budget. The discussion just won't get the time or energy the membership deserves. --Bry (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2015 (CST)

$500 cap on Area host purchases

I saw the $500 cap on new equipment was removed, is there an explanation for that?

I'd like to see equipment purchase decisions being made by the membership as a whole, not by individuals.

--Hef (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2014 (CST)

The language in this section was basically lifted from last year's vote, so several sentences were removed until we finalize the area hosts' role in the budget. This section is still very much in progress. --Sylphiae (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2014 (CST)

I'm saying I'd like to see it get put back in. I don't care about the literal text of the language. I'm saying I don't like the idea of taking equipment purchasing decisions from the membership. --Hef (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2014 (CST)

I'm agreeing with Hef. Area hosts are important, but the bulk of the organization's financial decisions need to be getting made by the membership at large. --Dbever (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Hassle of a vote

"Provide area hosts with more spending power to provide better service to the membership without the hassle of passing a vote"

Voting's not a hassle - it's how the membership decides how to spend funds. Investing spending power in a tiny portion of our membership is something that needs to be done with care. --Dbever (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Voting is a hassle - there are too many fingers in the pot at vote time and everyone and their aunt has something to say about the vote. By pre-approving certain expenditure via a vote we are removing the onus of creating another vote on the area host. There is no difference on the membership voting to approve a $1000 expense now or via a vote in the future especially when the expense is known about, it makes financial sense to plan for it. Votes are unplanned ad hoc expenditure which is hard to budget for! --Amishhammer (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Everyone should have something to say - that's the point of an organization run by the members. If you want to discourage discussion of the organization's expenditures, then say that. --Dbever (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2015 (CST)