[Strategic] Working groups budgeting guidelines

Sat Jan 8 14:18:45 GMT 2011

2011/1/7 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>

> Hi,
>
>
> Milo van der Linden wrote:
>
>> I think it would be wise if all working groups fill out a template at the
>> start of each financial year, clearly stating their activities, what they
>> require and what they expect to achieve. This is no budgeting template, but
>> it forms the base for it and already shows a general indication of what they
>> think they require.
>>
>> (see http://www.dogomaps.net/osmf-wg-planning-template.odt for an initial
>> template)
>>
>
> Let's be very careful not to burden workings groups with administrative
> overhead. Setting goals for themselves and monitoring the progress towards
> these goals is something that may be sensible/feasible for some, but
> certainly not for all. (I'd struggle to set an opearational goal and define
> a monitoring method for *this* working group, for example. Also, we have
> always agreed that OpenStreetMap is not a professional service provider and
> that whatever we do on the technical side is a "best effort" thing rather
> than any guaranteed & measured service level agreements, so the
> technical-sounding examples in that template might give people the wrong
> ideas.)
>

I agree that we shouldn't create unwanted overhead. We should not bother
people that do a perfect job without ever documenting with a procedure that
feels like a pain in the ass.

I stripped the document to a bare minimum. Perhaps it doesn't need to be a
document, but a simple wiki page?
http://www.dogomaps.net/osmf-wg-planning-template-light.odt<http://www.dogomaps.net/osmf-wg-planning-template.odt>

> Maybe we should stick to what was discussed on IRC - collect budgetary
> requirements. Not "ask working groups to find suitable measurements for the
> quality of service they produce and run statistics accordingly".

Good point, I agree

>
>
>  This will be a spreadsheet that every working group needs to create,
>>
>
> ... provided that they require significant money - if they just need a few
> euros for the occasional correspondence then no need to fill any forms.
>

Agreed, but many few euros have to return in some overview somewhere too. Do
you have an idea on where you want small ammounts listed?

>
> I'm also a bit uncomfortable about the listing of person-time in the
> requirements column because this mixes up two different things. This whole
> process is about budged, and most working groups will not have their own
> funding. So when a working group says "this needs 5k EUR" then the money has
> to come from OSMF. But if they say "this needs 1 man-month" then it is
> certainly up to them to find someone to do that work ;)

The entries under "expenses" in the spreadsheet are there purely as an
example. I would love to discuss what can be removed and again, strip it
down to a bare minimum.

>
>  it should be fit to have them estimate budget in advance, and at the end
>> of a financial year, close the budget with real figures so it can be
>> evaluated. The spreadsheet will also indicate whether the budget for the
>> next year should be in- or decreased. My example also shows that relocation
>> of budgets can also be made visible.
>>
>> (see http://www.dogomaps.net/osmf-wg-budget-template.odt for an initial
>> template)
>>
>
> Make that .ods not .odt ;)

http://www.dogomaps.net/osmf-wg-budget-template.ods

>
>
>  Please let me know what you think; Is this a move in the right direction?
>> Or am I completely lost?
>>
>
> You are dangerously close to Dilbert land with your first template, in my
> personal opinion; the second is all right.
>

Whoahaha! Ok, glad you think the second template is in the right direction.

>
> I think working groups will need a little guidance along the lines of
> "think about the funds that may be needed in your area". They may be used to
> be able to just go to the board and request something during the year, and
> may need to be coaxed a bit into the kind of advance planning that is now
> asked of them.
>

I will gladly help in this process. A quick e-mail or a little chat on IRC,
maybe even a phone call can make a lot of things clear. My goal is to be
transparant and make information on "what do we want to do this year" and
"what do we think we need (money/people) this year" available to every
possible visitor on the OSMF website, not in long text, but plain and
simple. I would strongly want to say there shouldn't be force, and the
working groups shouldn't be held accountable for their results. Goals set
needn't necessary be achieved as we are all volunteers and have to make
optimal use of what little time is available.

>
> At the same time, it must be made clear (as Mikel also said on IRC) that
> just because working groups can request funding for something doesn't mean
> that they automatically have a license to do whatever big thing it is they
> require funding for. Sometimes having a form to fill in gives people all
> kinds of strange ideas ("Uniforms! Sure, let's get uniforms for all members
> of the data working group so they look more impressive when they slap people
> on the wrists...")
>

For this, there is the OSMF board. And when the "strange ideas" are clearly
visible for the world to see (transparancy) we have enough people that would
gladly point out the absurds to the board or discuss them lively on the
mailinglists.

> Also, keep in mind that we're talking a *very* small number of working
> groups here:
>
> TWG - already has budgeting process in place (said Mikel)
>
The meeting minutes from the TWG are very clear, compliments on that, they
can easily be translated into a budget, but a budget itself cannot be found
(at the moment) on the osmf website.

> SOTM - must also have a budgeting process already I guess; also only WG
> with their own income sources
>

I think a budget for the upcomming SOTM and financial reports from previous
years should become available on the osmf website

Articles - inactive
>
then leave as is ;-)

> Licensing - temporary working group that will hopefully cease to exist once
> the license change is over
>
I think that licensing has requested funds in the past for legal support,
don't know if they still pay lawyers every now and then.

> Data - no budgetary requirements that I could see
>

> Strategic - same
>
> That leaves us with the Communications and Local Chapters working group,
> and maybe Licensing if the budgeting process is quick (or the relicensing is
> slow).
>
> Maybe we should talk of "Working group or project" to make clear that you
> don't have to set up a one-man working group just to get funding.

Completely agree!

>
>
>  I will try to create some flowcharts too that will easily explain the
>> budgeting-related processes.
>>
>
> Try not to go over the top here. We must be careful not to give the project
> at large the impression that Strategic is a bunch of would-be managers
> desperate for something to manage. Let's try and keep bueraucracy and
> processes small - we may need to introduce some, but we should stick to the
> absolute minimum ("the simplest thing that could possibly work") rather than
> rejoicing in the chance to design processes.
>

I won't it needs to be easy, but as a would-be manager I just LOVE
flowcharts!

The main thing is not formalizing things through procedures and documents,
but simply becoming more transparent. Things have worked in the past and
they will work in the future, I am sure. But right now, the osmf website
doesn't make clear what is going on, and it doesn't give me a clue at all as
potential sponsor or potential volunteer what I might be able to do to help.

> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/attachments/20110108/b034a33e/attachment.html>