[Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/8/28 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > Depends how you want to look at it, since the dollar bills aren't color
> > coded or anything.  But the last budget I bothered to look at (which I
> > believe is the one before the last one released) was underspent in the
> area
> > of technology and overspent in other areas.  So I think it's valid to say
> > that "tech money was spent on other things".  As I said, I didn't even
> > bother looking at the last budget.  After hearing Sue admit that the one
> I'm
> > talking about was padded, there was little point.
>
> There were explanations for all those over- and under-spends. I
> considered them all to be good explanations. I would have to look at
> the report again to be sure, but I think there was a better than
> budgeted surplus in the year you are talking about, so the reason for
> not spending the full tech budget wasn't lack of funds from having
> spent them elsewhere.


Regardless, I wish they had spent the full tech budget, hired an experienced
CTO, and fixed the dumps.  Plus a bunch of other things (I don't think
single-user-login had yet been implemented, and I'm pretty sure most of the
more advanced features which supposedly depended on single-user-login like
cross-project watchlists still haven't been implemented).

As you said, whether or not that would have happened given a different board
structure, who knows.  But I think there's a chance it would have been
better.