Re: Mission Statement

[Ekaterina Gerasimova <kittykat3756 gmail com>]

On 7 August 2014 09:57, David King <amigadave amigadave com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2014-08-06 20:19, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
> > On 6 August 2014 19:49, Michael Hill <mdhillca gmail com> wrote:
> > > "This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has
> > > caused actual financial problems for the project.  This year, GNOME
> > > temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover from the
> > > cashflow problems caused by the size of OPW." -- Ryan Lortie
> > >
> > > Result: day to day operations of the Foundation disrupted.
> >
> >
> > the disruption has been put in place to recover reserves that we
> > burned through; those reserves were burned through because of a
> > reduction in the cash flow of the Foundation in general — i.e. our
> > finances have been shrinking for the past few years. the OPW was an
> > expenditure to make up for invoices not being paid, but *any*
> > expenditure (hackfest, conferences, travel assistance) could have
> > caused the freeze.
>
>
> I sit on the travel committee, and witness a large part of the Foundation's
> expenditure on travel assistance and hackfests, as well as approving
> (together with other members of the committee) those expenses within
> boundaries set by the Foundation board. To my knowledge, the travel
> committee has not exceeded its event budgets since I have been a member.
>
> While it is possible for any expenditure to trigger an emergency situation
> (given a sufficiently large amount), it is probably better to concentrate on
> situations where spending limits have been exceeded, and to reduce the
> likelihood of those situations occurring in the future.
>
>
> > in general, the freeze that has less to do with OPW and more with our
> > own issues in tracking payments and invoices, and handling our own
> > accounting. the whole issue could have just as easily happened if we
> > didn't have OPW, to be fair. in a way, the OPW growth and this whole
> > finance situation has forced the board to get a better handle on the
> > foundation's own funding and processes, to streamline them, document
> > them, and track them.
>
>
> According to the Foundation board's FAQ about the financial situation when
> it was first announced, the Foundation "had to front the costs of OPW":
>
> https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/CurrentBudgetFAQ#Why_had_this_happened.3F
>
> While the issue could have occurred without the OPW, in this case it
> happened because of the OPW, and the board put it rather unequivocally:
>
> "The GNOME Foundation had a temporary lack of reserves due to processing the
> funds for the Outreach Program for Women (OPW)."
> https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/CurrentBudgetFAQ#What_is_the_situation.3F
>
>
> > now that things are tracked properly the remaining effect of the OPW
> > growth is the administrative burden on our own administrative
> > infrastructure; that still needs to be fixed, and it would be good to
> > have ideas on how to increase our volunteer base.
>
> Does that mean that all the outstanding invoices for OPW have been paid? If
> not, there is a financial burden as well as an administrative one.

There are still a few invoices which are unpaid for previous rounds,
but there are also some invoices which have been paid for the upcoming
round.

> > we also still need to build up cash reserves, so that we can unfreeze
> > the expenditures of the foundation.
>
>
> It seems reasonable to expect that OPW is subject to spending freezes just
> like the rest of the non-essential expenditure of the Foundation, including
> hackfests, travel and so on. However, there are very few minuted discussions
> of OPW payments from the board since the freeze. I can find no record of a
> decision for sending out the second part of the stipend for the current
> round of OPW:
>
> https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/2014/MayAugust#Payments_Schedule
>
> I would have expected a decision some time before the 7th July stipend
> payment, but I can only see an inconclusive discussion and partial vote from
> the start of June:
>
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce/2014-June/msg00004.html
>
> As the payment date has now passed, did the board vote on the expense, and
> were the payments sent?

No, the board did not vote on the expense, but the payments were sent.

> --
> http://amigadave.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list