I agree with this, the budgeting system is purely that..a budget for funding - when you submit a proposal ensure you are proposing something which you have control over and can deliver with no other external dependencies.
Strictly speaking, you are correct that the "mnbudget" commands are just that... they are for budgets. That said, we have used the budgeting system on at least a couple of occasions to resolve non-budget decisions, which has proven valuable. But these should be reserved for really strategic, large decisions, in my opinion
... not execution level tasks. The most recent example was the block size increase proposal. We also have used it to agree on reallocating the Public Awareness budget to fiat gateways development (but this was still a budget-related decision).
I do think that the mnbudget provides a valuable tool to the core team to obtain input from the community, but that does not absolve a core team member from their responsibility to make hard decisions that might be right, but ultimately unpopular
. At the end of the day, this is a democracy, but it's actually more like shareholders than voters. Also, it is more like a representative democracy than a direct one.
Democracy = 1 vote per person
Shareholders = 1 vote per Masternode
Direct democracy = Voters pass laws directly
Representative democracy = Voters elect representatives which work to pass laws
I also believe that the technology itself will enable our shareholders to move down the spectrum from purely representative democracy to some yet-undefined mix of direct vs. representative
(which I think we will figure out in time, based on what works). In a traditional corporation, board elections are only once a year and that's pretty much the input you get. However, we can collect input at any point in the year, vote out the core team at any point, get more granular on controlling the strategy and/or budget, etc. It is the technology itself that enables this to happen. But at the end of the day, the core team remains as "representatives" in the sense that many decisions are made by the core team on behalf of the network every day. People will be handed responsibility to execute certain roles, collect input (from the community / experts / etc), become more informed than the masternode owners ever could on it, make a decision, and act.
What I don't want to see happen is that every time a decision doesn't go a community member's way immediately and exactly as they wanted, they resort to "decision proposals" on minor non-strategic decisions. My opinion is that in this case, it didn't warrant a proposal. I strongly believe setting this precedent would be detrimental to the success of the project. I suspect this one could potentially pass, I don't know... we will see. But even if it does, I suspect many others will follow and the masternode owners will quickly grow weary of resolving these minor spats and will vote them down. We need to learn to work together and compromise rather than have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude and run home to cry to the MN owners every time a two-day-old dispute isn't yet resolved.
EDIT: In fact, the more I contemplate this, the more inappropriate I believe it is for @amanda_b_johnson
to involve 1,000+ people (masternode owners) in a two-day old disagreement that she has clearly made little effort to understand or resolve through debate and compromise. Surely she can find a way to resolve this without asking 1,000+ people to resolve it for her... People that are probably generally ill-equipped with the necessary information - like myself - to make these decisions. Or who don't want to consume a bunch of time educating themselves on the issue to make said decision. This probably results in poor decisions being reached and/or consumes an unbelievable amount of time of 1,000 people to educate themselves when a few people could have worked independently to resolve it.
Please, don't take this as criticism of you or your involvement here (I think your work is great and I'm very glad to see you involved) personally. You are far from the only person that desires more "granular" use of the budgeting system than I do. For all I know, I am the outlier with unpopular views. We all will have different views that we express as we define how the system is to be appropriately used for all our benefit. I only mean to criticize the ideas. Either people will agree with me or they won't, a precedent will be established that we try for a while, and it will continue to evolve as the project grows and learns from past experiences. I just strongly believe in a different optimal use of the budgeting system and the role input from the community should play, and in what forms that input is best provided.