Hi Simon,as you may know I do fully agree that there should be much more transparency and that there is no need to keep private who voted on what except in some very rare cases.
It's probably no secret that I'm not happy at all about the whole budgeting process. I voted on the general idea of the budget but not to confirm the specific items as I agree we need to define a budget I think the methods used to get stuff in the ranking has room for improvement.
I find it very odd that the same people that propose tenders are also in the board voting for them in the budget and then they end up bidding for them. This is something that we should change very quickly and this should affect the current budget down the line even if we approve a rough idea of spending.
I would also say that the project nad tenders approved for the budget 2022 should be published in full, with relative costing, so that all can see how much we plan to spend on each items allowing the community to let us know if they agree with those items and costing.
I tried to find the spreadsheet with the votes from the members of the ESC to see how the ranking has been done but it seems like it's a "secret", as you like to say, as it hasn't yet been shared with the board.
The costing issue seems to be recognised by the commercial contributors represented in the ESC which finds it too expensive to provide detailed quotes for the tenders they'll bid on so it seems like we have a budget that doesn't really represent reality:
To conclude I welcome your call for more transparency and please do ask for more if things are not clear.
Ciao Paolo On 01/04/2022 11:30, Simon Phipps wrote:
-- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details:https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
Description: OpenPGP digital signature