Financial disclosure through a data-driven web page #140
Comments
myShoggoth
added
enhancement
|
Personally, I'm surprised, and mildly perturbed to hear you saying that you received feedback saying the information you gave was too detailed! I want the details. That thread was read by 1.5K people, and your post with the update has twice as many hearts as any other post in that thread. I don't see any public comments implying that it is too detailed? If the public dialog was overwhelming positive, with no negative public comments by 1500 people then wouldn't that outweigh if a couple of people privately messaged you? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding or if I missed something. I can understand the benefit of perhaps adding the high level summary information that you mention. I want all the info available for everyone (except I don't think we should give an individuals name along with how much they donated, unless they give their permission for that.). It's not just a personal preference either, I don't think. Data is powerful, it allows us to draw our own conclusions, with summaries alone important insights can be missed. |
|
Can you keep the details, but give more of a high level overview? Because I
agree that the details are great!
…On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:58 PM human154 ***@***.***> wrote:
Personally, I'm shocked, and mildly perturbed to hear you saying that you
received feedback saying the information you gave was too detailed! I want
details. That thread was read by 1.5K people, and your post with the update
has twice as many hearts as any other post in that thread. I don't see any
comments implying that it is too detailed? If the public dialog was
overwhelming positive, with no negative public comments by 1500 people then
wouldn't that outweigh if a couple of people privately messaged you? Sorry
if I'm misunderstanding.
I can understand the benefit of perhaps adding the high level summary
information that you mention. I want all the info available for everyone
(except I don't think we should give an individuals name along with how
much they donated unless they give permission their for that.). It's not
just a personal preference either, I don't think. Data is powerful, it
allows us to draw our own conclusions, with summaries alone important
insights can be missed.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#140 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAACVODU2Z7RQHHJSVP6I73UH4UQRANCNFSM5GMHDQLA>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
|
What I mean by details is specifically how much each donor has given, to the dollar amount. Levels are fine, but tying each donor/sponsor to a specific amount without first having that person or company opt-in was not appreciated by some donors / sponsors. Saying how much we've taken in (and how much per tier) and what we're spending it on I think is completely appropriate. |
|
Revealing anything about how much someone donates is questionable to me, including even indicating approximate donation levels, I think we should ask peoples' permission first before doing that, if we are going to do that. I don't personally like the idea of that kind of recognition, but I would leave it to others to decide this point (and I've heard some people say it would be meaningful to them). As a separate issue from recognizing donors.... As long as names are not associated with amounts, listing the dates of individual donations along with the exact amounts donated should be ok...as long as the name for each donation is not revealed. If names are not given along with the dates and amounts, there is no reason for anyone to oppose that, right? Having that data be public allows people to check that their donations are being received and properly recorded. If I'm donating $55 on august 3rd and the foundation lists this type of information, but doesn't include my $55 then I can raise the concern. Even better we could have a donor ID number or a paypal transaction number or something like that listed along with the date and amount of the donation...so then if there are 3 donations of $55 on a specific date, I can be sure that my $55 is one of them (because I can recognize my own ID number). (I'm imagining this log to be a separate page from your update. In your update, of course, it makes sense to summarize the overall picture) (I'm going to copy this to Discourse: |
|
Recognizing donors (who don't want to be anonymous) sounds great to me, I agree that separating their support from the amount is good. One option is that we could have a markdown file per donor with blank fields, and the donor themselves could PR the details (which we could double check for accuracy) if they want. Once we have this system in place I can update the expenses and sponsor support data when I do budget work every month, and @human154 could update the donors. I absolutely want to make sure people can understand where our money is coming from, and what we're using it for, as long as we respect the donor's privacy where appropriate. |
As discussed in https://gitlab.haskell.org/hf/meta/-/merge_requests/27#note_385634, it makes a lot of sense to have budget/financials disclosure be a page (or set of pages) on our website. Since we are now properly using Hakyll, we can create a set of markdown files with summary financial information, and then generate the page(s).
I posted https://discourse.haskell.org/t/live-update-list-of-haskell-foundation-funding/2964/6 at the end of August, but the feedback was it was too detailed, so instead I could see things like:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: