@Nathan Schneider Thanks for bringing these topics up. I was thinking that we should probably be referring to (and thinking of) our "stipend" payments more as an "honorarium," for ensuring the continuance of the co-op.

I agree that we should have some more specified process for un-budgeted expenses, but I've never known budgets to be set-in-stone, as it were, but more of an estimate of expected expenses. So while I do think we should tighten up the procedures a bit, I'm not particularly concerned with sticking to the exact numbers in the budget. Perhaps we could specify some percent of the total budget for "unexpected expenses" in the future - basically just a line item in the budget that equals maybe 3-5% of the total expected expenses. That way we have some leeway with spending for unexpected events, but also have some guiderails to make sure we (or future FWG members) don't end up blowing the bank account.

@Nathan Schneider.

For my vote in this poll, my thinking is: FWG could have sat on this problem for another year, any of us might have tackled it, but I felt low willingness to do it, and I'm glad that it's resolved. This vote is my "Thank You, Andres!"

Shared thought here: ""Our "stipends" should not be construed as salary but as symbolic compensation for volunteers. But that changes when people are being paid for more specific tasks.""

If we as FWG agree a task needs to be done, then there isn't a hierarchy of tasks. A task might be existential to operation, essential to who we are as a cooperative, or necessary in the moment so that we can achieve success in a group effort: all become important when we decide to do them.

And, a rambling thought about being in relationship with each other:  I am here for friendship and skill sharing and solidarity and to support the coop with my skills. The stipend is nice. When we volunteer to sort out fiscal hosting or engage the day’s conversations on Loomio, then we are creating the coop. It rubs me the wrong way for any person to claim exceptionalism in skill or effort, though it could be true. Whenever we talk about money, we need to be clear about issues of equity and trust, but in a cooperative, it defines us.

And, shared thought here: "[We should]...not ... set a precedent of people asking to be paid for work after doing it."

Yes, let's talk about processes going forward for treating expenses that aren't budgeted.

@andrewe Thanks for this. I agree with you on 2. The budget is a framework and guideline. But I do think we should clarify in future budgeting processes what to do with outliers.

Agreed on the gravity of this case, and its relevance to the reserves budget.

In the future, though, I think we need to be careful not to set a precedent of people asking to be paid for work after doing it. If work is to be paid for, that should be agreed on ahead of time. Otherwise we run the risk of exposing the co-op to unplanned expenses.

@Nathan Schneider All valid points!

1. We now have a member-approved annual budget and we also have a process for submitting expenses; FWG must always ensure both are respected and followed.
   I believe my stipend expense is part of the £2K Reserves budget as we were ensuring operational continuity (our biggest risk at the time).

2. I believe FWG should have the authority to approve expenses that are not materially above the budget. Stipends (WG and OC members leaving and joining) and tech costs (surge in usage, new ideas and testing, rapid response) will sometimes fall a bit below or above the budget. FWG should have some (limited) leeway.

3. Agree on labour laws. A great question for an engaged UK fiscal host and new Legal Working Group.

RE: @andrewe's submission of an expense for domain-related work:

• https://www.loomio.com/p/MnhORxtv/invoice-domain-name-dispute-resolution-unbudgeted-
• https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/216901

Thanks for this, @andrewe. One question I have is whether we need a clearer process to approve an unbudgeted expense. In the past, we have just approved whatever seems reasonable and necessary, knowing that we had more income than expenses. Now that we have a budget, that provides guidance for what is already approved, but it does raise questions about how to treat expenses that are not already budgeted. I could see two approaches:

• Treating this as part of an existing budget line, like the domain name, and just acknowledging that we may go over budget on that this year
• Using this opportunity to create a process for unbudgeted expenses. A key question there is whether the FWG still has authority to approve costs outside the budget or if that requires a different kind of process.

Another issue we need to be aware of is labor law. In the US, at least, it is legal for people to volunteer time for co-ops and nonprofits. Our "stipends" should not be construed as salary but as symbolic compensation for volunteers. But that changes when people are being paid for more specific tasks. If we are paying for labor, we need to be very careful to ensure we are not running into any trouble with UK law. (Another reminder that we need an active legal group!)

Approved hosting expense for @Noah: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/207821

@Andrew Escobar (Andres) · social.coop Finance Working Group What is that address for? Is that P6's address? Since Social.coop is not a legal entity, I think something like this should be billed to the fiscal host. At the least it should say "Social.coop c/o P6" or something.

@Nathan Schneider @Noah I can see “social.coop” on invoice but perhaps we can bring some redundancy and security to the account by ensuring it is in the name of either P6 or Innovation. In the same way it was so difficult to gain access the domain account because it was in the name of a registered/incorporated cooperative, we should consider using P6 or innovation for this and other significant accounts.

Approved Social.coop hosting expense: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/203508

@Noah a question: I see that the bill is in the name of Nicholas Stokoe. Can we switch the ownership of the Hetzner account away from a particular person and toward P6, our fiscal sponsor? cc: @Graham @Andrew Escobar (Andres) · social.coop Finance Working Group

Approved Social.coop domain expense: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/195391

Yay @Andrew Escobar (Andres) · social.coop Finance Working Group for finally getting this to happen!

Approved Hetzner bill: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/195218

Approved Hetzner bill: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/191185

Approved Hetzner January bill: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/186555

Approved hosting bills.

Hetzner: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/180719

DigitalOcean: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/180744

Approved the latest CWG expense: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/174814

Approved hosting expense: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/174313

Could someone please approve this expense? I can't, since I submitted it: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/171880 @Matthew Cropp @Josh Davis @Leo Sammallahti

Approved hosting expense: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/166833

Approved hosting expense: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/163308

Approved for CWG: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/158876

Approved hosting expense: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/156167

Approved: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/155210

Just approved this: https://opencollective.com/socialcoop/expenses/138258

@Darren in this case we just need votes from FWG members, but others are more than welcome to weigh in:)