Scope of this phase of npoacct

[Josh Berkus]

On 08/31/2016 11:52 AM, Brett Smith wrote:

> I just posted our requirements for the system
> <http://npoacct.sfconservancy.org/Reimbursements/Requirements/>, and
> hopefully it makes clear that we’re flexible on this point. We imagine
> organizations would be interested in deploying it with a variety of
> systems, and we’d be happy for it to either push to a more general or
> accounting-oriented A/P system, or have it be the organization’s main
> A/P interface and have it write directly to the books.

One thing I don't see in here is any requirement to define the reviewers
for requests.

Let me give you an example of the desired SPI request approval workflow:

1. someone requests reimbursement, with receipts attached.

2. the admin for the project (sub-organization) approves the request

3. the treasurer approves the request

4. payment goes out

5. the request is marked filled (by the treasurer)

6. The funds are marked received (by the requestor)

In this workflow, the identity of the reviewer would, ideally, be tied
to a "project" tag which would be required for each request, and would
be updatable by the treasurer elsewhere in the system.  It seems to me
like Conservancy and Apache would have similar requirements?

Step (6) is desired because, for international wire transfers and
Western Union. there can be a substantial delay in the payment being
received ... and payments can go astray entirely.

-- 
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)