Out of more than ten working groups, the objectives, amount of work and number of participants differ. Some groups have 10 participants and others only 1. Some groups are working almost every day since the hicathon and others have just been activated. Hic et nunc is dependent or waiting for the integration of the projects of some groups much more than others.
► How should we distribute the budget in a fair and just way?
- equal distribution to each working group without taking into account other characteristics and distribution upon decision of the WG members
- proportional distribution according to the number of participants
- ask the community to order the WG into a priority ladder and then distribute the budget proportionally
Vote here H=N VOTE
We are lacking innovative ideas on how the bounties can be distributed to all the working groups. Any suggestion?
How about considering the budgeted amounts that were put into plans to realize the envisioned projects? Could be discussed with the groups?
yes this was the original idea and it is a very equalitarian solution
however, some WG have one participant while others are almost 10
also, some WGs need to work a few days, and some others a few months
You are right there are very different modes of engagement. Therefore my suggestion was (not equalitarian but based on individual communication):
- ask working groups to propose budgets for their goals (10.2 has provided budgets for 3 of the proposals)
- discuss the budgets with the groups: are they feasible? too high? too low? can they be consolidated with measurable goals? and so on…
- decide how much to fund
- ask for a little report on budget spending
Sounds bureaucratic yet I think a bit of bureaucracy is the way to ensure an adequate budgeting, at least in the long term.
This sound fabulous if our budget was unlimited but it is not. We started to ask how much each WG needed and the total was very far from what we have to spend … you see the issues here?
I do not see an issue to distribute funds based on actual plans as opposed to some formula like “number of group members”. The idea to “discuss the budgets with the groups: are they feasible? too high? too low? can they be consolidated with measurable goals? and so on…” means you can always say, “let’s fund 50% of your propsed amount”. It is not all or nothing for most proposals.
Why I am against a blind metric like “number of members”? Because it is not a fair method. It can be and already has been gamed. As an example, just before the distribution of hicathon rewards a number of people wrote themselves into our group’s document, of which I haven’t heard anything from before and after receiving the rewards.