Confirmed users
151
edits
Reps/Council/Elections/Fall2013: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Many are accusing our Swag and Budget procedures for bureaucracy. What is your take? What can we change?: Fixed page layout
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==== Many are accusing our Swag and Budget procedures for bureaucracy. What is your take? What can we change? ==== | ==== Many are accusing our Swag and Budget procedures for bureaucracy. What is your take? What can we change? ==== | ||
* '''Nikos''': The first one is a tough :) Participating in other Open Source projects/communities I can certainly claim that our current budget/swag process is very streamlined and well documented. But we got big, so did our needs for faster budget/swag procedure. Trying to avoid overcomplex rules and unnecessary bureaucracy we should implement a clear 3-tier policy about budget depending on the amount of money requested, where the approval should be done by the mentor alone, a council member, or after a council vote depending on the amount requested. This way the small budget requests would be processed more quickly. But we should also educate mentors to judge a request depending on Rep's credibility. When we're dealing with a Rep who has repeatedly done great events and always been very typical with receipts and logistics we should approve faster. | * '''Nikos''': | ||
The first one is a tough :) Participating in other Open Source projects/communities I can certainly claim that our current budget/swag process is very streamlined and well documented. But we got big, so did our needs for faster budget/swag procedure. Trying to avoid overcomplex rules and unnecessary bureaucracy we should implement a clear 3-tier policy about budget depending on the amount of money requested, where the approval should be done by the mentor alone, a council member, or after a council vote depending on the amount requested. This way the small budget requests would be processed more quickly. But we should also educate mentors to judge a request depending on Rep's credibility. When we're dealing with a Rep who has repeatedly done great events and always been very typical with receipts and logistics we should approve faster. | |||
* '''Sayak''': The current budget /swag request procedures are based on reviews at multiple levels. Once a rep files a request, it has to be cleared by the Rep's mentor before it can be put up before the council for consideration. This procedure is quite effective at most times, as it helps smoothen the request review process by adding a filtering layer to ensure that the reviewing body is utilizing its resources efficiently behind legitimate requests.However, having said that I also do feel that we can further improve the current procedure by making a few changes and adding a few basic criteria to the current process | * '''Sayak''': | ||
The current budget /swag request procedures are based on reviews at multiple levels. Once a rep files a request, it has to be cleared by the Rep's mentor before it can be put up before the council for consideration. This procedure is quite effective at most times, as it helps smoothen the request review process by adding a filtering layer to ensure that the reviewing body is utilizing its resources efficiently behind legitimate requests.However, having said that I also do feel that we can further improve the current procedure by making a few changes and adding a few basic criteria to the current process. | |||
The reason from what I see is that some people may think that the procedures are bureacratic is maybe because they aren't quite sure about how exactly the council has reviewd their requests. What needs to be done is the implementation of further procedures to make the review process more transparent to the reps. | |||
A possible way to approach this issue might be to improve the current budget / swag SOPs to include more detailed information about what are the specific points that are looked into for each request. There were a couple of awesome blogposts in the recent past about how best to go about making these requests, however it may help to put these guidelines in a more formalized and structured document as a part of the current SOPs and make them more accessible. | A possible way to approach this issue might be to improve the current budget / swag SOPs to include more detailed information about what are the specific points that are looked into for each request. There were a couple of awesome blogposts in the recent past about how best to go about making these requests, however it may help to put these guidelines in a more formalized and structured document as a part of the current SOPs and make them more accessible. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 31: | ||
* '''Majda''': | * '''Majda''': | ||
* '''Gauthamraj''': The current procedure isn’t much bureaucracy considering the smoother flow of the program and the number of Swag and Budget request approved everyday.Also , we definitely need a governing body ( council elected by reps ) since when these requests were misused it will be a sensitive issue and can affect the reputation of the community. However , to make it less bureaucracy, it is better to have a group of people ( selected by their own community members / Mozilla Employees but not just the reps should involve Mozillians as well ) for every community ( or a region ) who can review the request as an initial review ( In many regions Council/ Mentor members aren’t aware about the cost for different services ) and provide priority and urgency levels accordingly . This helps the mentor to make sure that other community members are informed about the event and ease up his/her review. If both of the above reviews has a certain level of good values , council member SHOULD approve the request as he/she has most of the expected info’s , if any issues , he/she needs to communicate with the initial review team and with mentor and sort it out within 48 hours ( decision must be made ) . In this way , we have the involvement of those people who aren’t managing anyone in the initial review and everyone in the community are informed about the event. Also , this procedure may not be applied to all request ,but for request that submitted less than 3 weeks . | * '''Gauthamraj''': | ||
The current procedure isn’t much bureaucracy considering the smoother flow of the program and the number of Swag and Budget request approved everyday.Also , we definitely need a governing body ( council elected by reps ) since when these requests were misused it will be a sensitive issue and can affect the reputation of the community. However , to make it less bureaucracy, it is better to have a group of people ( selected by their own community members / Mozilla Employees but not just the reps should involve Mozillians as well ) for every community ( or a region ) who can review the request as an initial review ( In many regions Council/ Mentor members aren’t aware about the cost for different services ) and provide priority and urgency levels accordingly . This helps the mentor to make sure that other community members are informed about the event and ease up his/her review. If both of the above reviews has a certain level of good values , council member SHOULD approve the request as he/she has most of the expected info’s , if any issues , he/she needs to communicate with the initial review team and with mentor and sort it out within 48 hours ( decision must be made ) . In this way , we have the involvement of those people who aren’t managing anyone in the initial review and everyone in the community are informed about the event. Also , this procedure may not be applied to all request ,but for request that submitted less than 3 weeks . | |||
* '''Guillermo''': | * '''Guillermo''': | ||