[DISCUSS] 2023 budget

Board Discuss
#1

Dear community,

this thread is to publicly discuss the 2023 budget.

The basis for the draft is:

The following numbers are preliminary, pending final accounting review:

For 2023 in total, we have to plan spending of 1.955.195,41 €
The capital stock we can’t spend is 50.000 €
The Free reserves we can, but do not have to spend, are 953.768,13 €

The recurring costs, including compensations, accountant, legal advice are 947.864,56 €
Running cost & discretionary spending are 32.500,00 €
Trainings are 5.000,00 €
Infrastructure is 74.000,00 €

For LibOCon and FOSDEM 40.000 € are planned in
For community projects 65.000,00 € are planned in
For the marketing budget 20.000 € are planned in

This sums up to 1.184.364,56 € and leaves 770.830,85 €.

Assigned to pending projects from 2022 and earlier are 390.817,42 €, which also respects the ESC ranking. These projects are:

(Note that projects are listed as per January 1, 2023)

  • Text layout
  • Cleanup & further improve ODF conformance
  • C++ accessibility tests
  • MC request: Improvements on the Membership Committee tooling Tool
  • 2-4% budget to FLOSS software as devprojects or support
  • MC request: TDF welcome kit for the members
  • Support for Editing and Creation of SmartArt
  • Convert Impress slideshow to drawinglayer primitives
  • Writer tables: support cell margins (next to cell padding)
  • Bitmaps in vcl: Merge RGB and A layer into one
  • Font subsetter for font embedding
  • ODT export nondeterminism
  • Remove/Replace usages of XOR-Paint
  • Look-ahead styleref field for Writer
  • Normalized spell checking
  • XLSX Aggressive Competitors tracker: gridlines for 3d line charts
  • Contract Weblate to sort out issues pointed out by the l10n community
  • Update & translate LibreLogo manual, complete LibreLogo unit tests
  • [MC] Carbon compensation

This leaves 380.013,43 € to be spent for new projects. Proposed as new projects for 2023 are 820.978,99 €, which also respects the ESC ranking. These projects are:

  • 10% project budget for members
  • Hardware for members
  • BZ release funding
  • [MC] Training on the reform of foundation law changes incl. BoD
  • Outreachy
  • Legal fees
  • External advise on board topic and procedures (Central Consultancy report)
  • Compensations
  • Make Firebird implementation production-ready
  • Replace remaining Carbon functions with non-Carbon functions (macOS)
  • Missing ODF Features: Draw:shadow-offset-x/y only partially implemented
  • Allow inline graphics, formulas in impress (and draw), open equation with inline formulas from PPT, PPS, PPTX, PPSX
  • Missing ODF Features: Attribute svg:d of draw:path some of the possible commands are missing
  • Tests for drawinglayer and basegfx
  • Rotated Writer TextFrames Funktionsimplementation
  • Slideshow: rendering content on top of videos
  • XLSX Aggressive Competitors tracker: support math equations in Calc shapes
  • Missing ODF Feature: draw:regular-polygon missing completely
  • Missing ODF Features: The attribute draw:text-rotate-angle is interpreted, but there exists no user interface to change it
  • SVG rendering improvements

With all currently ranked and reviewed projects, we would overspend by 440.965,56 €.

Therefore the board needs to discuss the finalization of the budget and where to make the cut-off, and whether it wants to keep the ranking of the ESC or change it.

Please note that, given the situation and the discussions on this list and elsewhere, I explicitly will not make any statement on the validity of decisions or the budget process. This is up to the board, who has all material and information at hand.

As for the next steps, the feedback from legal counsel is as follows:

To be clear, depending on the overall budget, you have the ranking and a cut-off line. Only then it would make sense voting on the ranking. Also, I don’t think a vote by email on a fixed proposal is a good idea. Ideally, the staff should prepare a proposal for the budget, board member should have the right to propose amendments (raise one voice, lower another one) then these proposal should be discussed, put to a working order by staff and a final round of votes should occur, first on the amendments and on the general budget. If no amendments are proposed within a given time, then the budget is voted as a whole.

Based on that, the following is a proposal that should serve as a starting point for the discussion. Looking at the ESC ranking from ESC meeting minutes: 2023-06-29 and doing the math, the cut-off would be the following:

Tenders IN THE BUDGET as per ESC ranking:

  • Cleanup & further improve ODF conformance (2021)
  • Convert Impress slideshow to drawinglayer primitives (2021)
  • Writer tables: support cell margins (next to cell padding) (2021)
  • Font subsetter for font embedding (2022)
  • XLSX Aggressive Competitors tracker: gridlines for 3d line charts (2022)
  • Look-ahead styleref field for Writer (2022)
  • Normalized spell checking (2022)
  • Remove/Replace usages of XOR-Paint (2022)
  • ODT export nondeterminism (2022)
  • Bitmaps in vcl: Merge RGB and A layer into one (2022)
  • Make Firebird implementation production-ready
  • Replace remaining Carbon functions with non-Carbon functions (macOS)

Tenders NOT IN THE BUDGET as per ESC ranking:

  • Missing ODF Features: Draw:shadow-offset-x/y only partially implemented
  • Allow inline graphics, formulas in impress (and draw), open equation with inline formulas from PPT, PPS, PPTX, PPSX
  • Missing ODF Features: Attribute svg:d of draw:path some of the possible commands are missing
  • Tests for drawinglayer and basegfx
  • Rotated Writer TextFrames
  • Slideshow: rendering content on top of videos
  • XLSX Aggressive Competitors tracker: support math equations in Calc shapes
  • Missing ODF Feature: draw:regular-polygon missing completely
  • Missing ODF Features: The attribute draw:text-rotate-angle is interpreted, but there exists no user interface to change it.
  • SVG rendering improvements

This would leave 29.084,44 € to spend.

The next regular board call will be Monday, July 24. I suggest this to be the hard timeline for agreeing on a final budget, routing it through tax advise for finalization and checking the German translations of the budget items, which I’ve already prepared.

Florian

[DECISION] - Approve 2023 annual budget and reserves
[DECISION] - Approve 2023 annual budget and reserves
#2

Hello,

let me also list the sums for the tenders (thanks for the suggestion indeed!), which should make doing the math easier:

Tenders IN THE BUDGET as per ESC ranking:

  • Cleanup & further improve ODF conformance (2021) - 47.124,00 €
  • Convert Impress slideshow to drawinglayer primitives (2021) - 24.000,00 €
  • Writer tables: support cell margins (next to cell padding) (2021) - 72.000,00 €
  • Font subsetter for font embedding (2022) - 20.000,00 €
  • XLSX Aggressive Competitors tracker: gridlines for 3d line charts (2022) - 10.000,00 €
  • Look-ahead styleref field for Writer (2022) - 7.500,00 €
  • Normalized spell checking (2022) - 7.500,00 €
  • Remove/Replace usages of XOR-Paint (2022) - 15.000,00 €
  • ODT export nondeterminism (2022) - 5.000,00 €
  • Bitmaps in vcl: Merge RGB and A layer into one (2022) - 25.000,00 €
  • Make Firebird implementation production-ready - 119.000,00 €
  • Replace remaining Carbon functions with non-Carbon functions (macOS) - 47.600,00 €

Tenders NOT IN THE BUDGET as per ESC ranking:

  • Missing ODF Features: Draw:shadow-offset-x/y only partially implemented - 98.175,00 €
  • Allow inline graphics, formulas in impress (and draw), open equation with inline formulas from PPT, PPS, PPTX, PPSX - 71.400,00 €
  • Missing ODF Features: Attribute svg:d of draw:path some of the possible commands are missing - 23.800,00 €
  • Tests for drawinglayer and basegfx - 17.850,00 €
  • Rotated Writer TextFrames - 142.800,00 €
  • Slideshow: rendering content on top of videos - 47.600,00 €
  • XLSX Aggressive Competitors tracker: support math equations in Calc shapes - 29.750,00 €
  • Missing ODF Feature: draw:regular-polygon missing completely - 11.900,00 €
  • Missing ODF Features: The attribute draw:text-rotate-angle is interpreted, but there exists no user interface to change it. - 2.975,00 €
  • SVG rendering improvements - 23.800,00 €

Florian

Ideas around TDF's future
#3

An update from my side:

For one of the projects, 4.462,50 € instead of 0 € need to be planned in based on January 1 data, as the payment only took place in January, not already in December - but it doesn’t change the outcome a lot. The internal budget spreadsheet for the board has just been updated accordingly.

One option the board could choose is to plan in the tender “Missing ODF Features: Attribute svg:d of draw:path some of the possible commands are missing” for 23.800 €, with which the budget would be very much balanced.

This is just one option, there are others, this thread is to discuss.

Florian

Agenda for an **extraordinary** TDF board meeting on Monday, July 31st, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+2)
#4

Hello Florian,

I have a few requests:

  1. I would much prefer to see these budget lines and their figures in a table (e.g. ODS or CSV file).
  2. The table would be well-supplemented if we also had previous years’ expense on each of the items, in a separate column (allowing of course for budget line rename/split/merge).
  3. There is a single budget line which covers almost half the budget: 947,864.56 EUR for “recurring costs”. Is it possible to some breakdown of this line: What are the recurring costs? Rent, utilities, employee compensation, contracted services etc. Note I’m not asking for information regarding individual people’s salaries.
#5

You can have a look at the ledgers for more detailed information. Note that also the Annual Report will provide some overview either:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Ledgers

Annual Report will be very soon published here:

#6

The ledgers do indeed have more detail, but - are quite inconvenient to go over through when you want to evaluate a budget proposals…

have you considered, or has the board considered:

  1. Adding one (or more) levels of detail to the budget proposals, so that directors can see how it is composed - and how the different sub-items change in a given year?
  2. Adding two columns to the budget proposal file, which are informative rather than part of the proposal itself, being the budget line values for the previous budget-year, and the actually-expended values from the previous budget year?

I believe (speaking from experience…) that would greatly improve the ability of directors, staff, and trustees to understand both the current state of affairs and the implications and motivation for proposed changes.

#7

An unrelated question…

What period of time does this budget cover?

#8

Our fiscal year is the calendar year, so the budget covers January-December 2023.

#9

The board has access to some more fine-grained ledgers done by the accountant that includes individual line items, e.g. the various salaries and compensations and individual costs, that for anonymity we combine in the publicly available budget. The format is very comparable to the link Sophie sent you to the translated ledgers, just with a bit more detail - you essentially see some accounts combined with the “+” sign, that are listed line by line in the budget available to the board. There is also a column that shows the expenses for that account in the previous year.

#10

That is essentially salaries and compensations, accounting, legal advice, running costs and discretionary spending, trainings, infrastructure.

#11

So, what I would be happy to see is a breakdown of the nearly-a-Million-EUR into those categories.

#12

Well, I don’t want to start an argument about this - especially with some fires burning around us - but I think that the board (and/or you) should consider exposing this contextual information in the proposal as presented to the trustees. That would allow us to note:

  • increases and decreases in expenditure on individual items over time
  • realignment of expenditure emphasis over time
  • correlation between of under-execution or over-execution of planned expenses and changes in the budgeted amounts

without these, it is (at least for me) rather difficult to get a grasp of what’s going on with the budget. I realize the trustees are not the board, but - there’s nothing secret here (expect perhaps the individual compensation of employees). Perhaps you all could consider this for next year.

#13

So, the board is deciding the annual budget for 2023 after the middle of the year? … but then, about half the budget has already been expended then, before a decision about it was made. Shouldn’t the budget for 2023 be decided in late 2022, or very early in 2023 at the latest?

#14

Yes, that is a good proposal for the future. Given the timing this year, I fear it will be a challenge to provide that ahead of today’s call, but certainly something we can improve on for the future.

Item 1 and 2 should be visible from the accounting ledgers in the wiki, actually, with the comparison to the previous year. Item 3 is indeed something we can look into.

There were some individual approvals (e.g. costs for FOSDEM and LibOCon, and some meetings), but for the general budget: correct.

#15

Hi Eyal,

[EyalRozenberg] EyalRozenberg
https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/eyalrozenberg

So, the board is deciding the annual budget for 2023 after the middle of
the year? … but then, about half the budget has already been expended
then, before a decision about it was made. Shouldn’t the budget for 2023
be decided in late 2022, or very early in 2023 at the latest?

It is not a problem per se if it is not finished. But then the board
has of course to be aware that the spending in the current year, are
e.g. the usually expected, clearly within the available budget etc.
And obviously we’re not aiming at doing this as late as possible :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Cor
(edited: s/per see/per se

#16

Hi Eyal,

[EyalRozenberg] EyalRozenberg
https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/eyalrozenberg
July 24
…
without these, it is (at least for me) rather difficult to get a grasp
…
Perhaps you all could consider this for next year.

Thanks for mentioning this.
Apart from that I expect that with a few years passing, things get
clearer by themselves, your suggestion makes perfect sense.

Cheers,
Cor

#17

I think you meant “per se” rather than “per see”?

Anyway, it’s possible that it is not a problem legally, but it is a problem organizationally… let’s take the extreme case of approving a budget on the last day, or hour, of the year. If that happens, then (almost) all expenditures and income-accruing activities for that year have already occurred - so it has to be an approval of what has already happened, and nothing else, since there’s no time to change anything. Having such a document is still a good thing, but then it’s not the vital organizational tool that it should be.

What happens in most organizations I’ve been active in, is that the discussions regarding what to place in the budget is the discussions regarding how to allocate funds over the coming year - and the approval of the budget is the agreement of the board regarding that plan for the upcoming year. That way, board members - and input from the community - can actually change things in such a discussion, at least in principle.

Now, I realize that the largest and most contentious part of the upcoming discussion is the selection of tender projects which can’t happen until a good time into the year (or at least - let’s assume that it can’t). But - the annual budget should not be “hijacked” by this decision, to wait for the latter half of the year. It could be just the distribution of the tender project pie that can wait, with everything else decided in advance.

That way, for example, the discussion of whether to, say, fund more public outreach/training this year, or add to the tender project budget, would be kept separate from which projects we like best.

Anyway, this is all a suggestion for future budgets, not for right now, so I’ll stop spamming this thread.

#18

Hi Eyal,

To add to the points from Florian and Cor - most of the budget is actually decided on much earlier (if only implicitely so, e.g. for contracts that are renewed/not cancelled, or for individual items like hiring new staff, funding BZ improvements, the weblate work, community budgets, etc).

What you see happening currently, is mostly an artifact of the German setup TDF is under - which is, the foundation has to file a formal annual close, including its annual report, for 2022. And ~all donation income from 2022 has to be budgetted for in that annual closing statement, thus this very formal, and laborious budget process.

HTH, Thorsten

#19

Many world states have formal annual statement filing requirements. But - those are typically drafted and filed after the year has ended and regard that complete year. Is it different in Germany somehow?

#20

No - mind that I wrote 2022 there. The twist is, that TDF then budgets any surplus into next year projects (including staff costs, infra, travel etc), so while it is the annual close for 2022 that is filed, much of the projected spend is for the following year(s).

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.