Toward an annual budget

I think the amounts set aside for "stipends" are too low – I agree with comments elsewhere in this discussion that social.coop work needs to be financially sustainable for individuals in order for the collective to be sustainable, and over-reliance on financially stable people donating their time as volunteers seems liable to carry the same risks of organisational fragility and homogeneity as usual.

A "living wage" (bearing in mind that this is likely too low for most, as it's based on full-time employment – and that it probably still represents a significant opportunity cost to most) seems like a good start.

I would prefer to focus on this, over donations to other tech projects, as a first priority.

@Calix As someone who isn't particularly financially stable, and also has a lot of free time to dedicate to the project, I agree with your assessment. I think the place to aim for is enabling people who want to contribute but need an income to contribute for pay, while also not requiring a wage be paid to every contributing working group member.

I have the luxury of a lot of free time, and an environment that enables me to do what I want with my free time, without a lot of worry about how my needs are met. That's an uncommon luxury, but while I enjoy it, the $25 per month I'd get from stipends as a CWG member doesn't make a big impact on my finances. While the individual stipends are as they are, I'd like that money to go towards cooperative projects where it would be more impactful.

I feel like this is the core of the communist ethos "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"

What if the members of each working group decide how to distribute their own stipend fund?

That seems like it would achieve a balance between enabling people to contribute who need an income, while not requiring membership fees that are too steep, in order to pay a full stipend to every contributing Working Group member.

Should a notice of the proposal get added to the announcements account on the actual server, by the way?

@Nathan Schneider Perhaps I missed it ... what is the annual revenue that social.coop receives for providing infrastructure costs? It is hard to approve an expenses list w/o seeing inbound receipts.

@yonks.eth｜🚕⚡🏡｜Jason Younker You can see the revenue info on Open Collective: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop#category-BUDGET

@GrahamI have a years'-long goal of putting together a Finances FAQ with information and links like this one.

I simply need an accountability buddy. I'd start the document, then we would sit down and add to it, then I would finish and post a draft for review by the Finance Working Group. So, my commitment is just waiting for a backer who is willing to read my zero draft, add to it, talk to me in real time once, and then the Finances FAQ would have a life of its own.

Small detail: the Organizing Circle is not within the CWG, so it can be listed as a fourth WG.

@Matt NoyesNoyesmNoyes

Yes of course. I imagined this as provisional, in the sense that the CWG might be seen as stewarding the OC temporarily, since the OC is still forming. I don't think we can change this now, but certainly for next year.

@Nathan Schneider Great. The CWG is rewriting the wiki page about the CWG and will put it up for member approval. We are bringing the documentation into line with the real practice. ;-)

@Nathan Schneider I'm curious what you would see as a threshold for a 'formed' circle?

@Kathe TB. The OC is making basic decisions around how it will meet and operate these months. We are in an early, forming stage, learning how we want to cooperate. The OC can’t budget for SC yet. When will the OC be formed enough to be able to handle such decisions as the creation of an annual budget proposal? Probably by the end of the year!

@Caitlin Waddick, CaitlinWaddickSocial.Coop Thanks! Good to realize where different people hold the line of 'functional' for Organizing Circle :D