Repository navigation
Please find a way to provide some transparency into what proportion of funds are going to board members #6
Description
I understand this is a complicated issue, with concerns all around.
But here's something I think would be very helpful....
Either (a), a top line number that says "In this quarter, X% of funds went to board members and the rest went to third parties" in the finance reports or (b) some sort of constraints or rules that set a limit to what proportion of funding can go to board members, or (c) some sort of incremental authorization... for example "Spending more than X% of funding on board member activities requires unanimous consent of the board"
I'm trying to offer a partial solution to the conflict of interest problem here. I can't speak to what's fair or reasonable, but I do think there is a lot of signal in knowing the approximate proportions of how funding is being allocated.
Members may be fine with some large number, or not. I don't know. But I do know that there is a huge structural difference between an org where 10% of funding is going to board members and 90% of funding is going to board members. Making it clear to the community how things break down would probably go a good way towards aligning expectations + clarifying how funding maps to the mission.
Activity
indirect commentedon May 8, 2018
This is legally required to be public information. We have always published this information.
We most recently summarized these exact numbers in January, for the entire year of 2017, at the bottom of our yearly update https://rubytogether.org/news/2018-01-07-december-monthly-and-2017-yearly-update.
My personal compensation in 2017 (and therefore the full amount paid to all board members combined in 2017) was about 15% of Ruby Together's budget in 2017.
practicingdev commentedon May 8, 2018
Thanks. I would say that as long as annual reports include this information, that this addresses the concern that I filed here.
I do think #7 is still relevant, in order to make this information easier to interpret in context.
adarsh commentedon May 8, 2018
@practicingdev I agree. Since #7 covers this already, can we close this issue?
practicingdev commentedon May 8, 2018
This (and all) tickets I filed were on behalf of others who had expressed concerns to me. I posted on their behalf after summarizing what I heard and seeing if there was a way to make a reasonable request in a somewhat neutral way.
I tweeted something about this issue and encouraged people to add comments here if they have concerns. I'd say, if you don't see anything show up here in a day or two, go ahead and close.
adarsh commentedon May 8, 2018
Thanks @practicingdev for engaging in a productive discussion. Our hope is for steady, albeit at times slow, progress. I'll close in a day or two if no other information posts.