FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-14-2012, 08:06 PM
Max Spevack
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Robyn Bergeron wrote:

with follow-up simply because we had a BOATLOAD OF CASH, and we didn't
really have to worry about prioritizing; we simply made an attempt to
ensure that the event had some value, and an owner, and some We are no
longer in that situation. The regional budget for FY12 was at least
pushed to the absolute limit, and more likely exceeded the limit.
Additionally, whereas in the past the regional budget was largely
utilized by EMEA and NA, we now are starting to see rapid increases in
community activity and requests from APAC and LATAM, which is a good
thing, but will certainly require those in EMEA and NA to be more
cognizant of impending events and requests in other regions.


snip

And I don't know what the shape of Famsco reporting is right now;
perhaps we need to get back to a focus on it, and if famsco isn't
willing to do it, get a group together who is willing to put in the
effort. But that's been a major piece of the accountability, and
additionally, an important piece that Max, or Harish, or the FPL can
show to Red Hat and say, "Here's the list of where your money went,
and how it was used, and why continuing to invest here is important."


For folks who are new, the historical data backing up what Robyn is
saying is here:


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Accounting and the pages linked off of
it. My sense is that this transparency angle has really stopped since I
turned in my Red Hat credit card. I would like to see it ressurected in
some form for the Red Hat fiscal year beginning on March 1. That
financial transparency is an important underpinning of Fedora's
community structure.


IMHO.

--Max
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-14-2012, 11:48 PM
Igor Pires Soares
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

Em Ter, 2012-02-14 ąs 07:49 -0700, Robyn Bergeron escreveu:
> However, I have some additional input here. For the Tempe FUDCon, we
> made the case that we were having additional people from each region
> come to participate to learn how to run a FUDCon, and to bring that
> knowledge back to their respective regions. And to that, I say, MISSION
> ACCOMPLISHED, we now have plenty of people with the knowledge. And yet,
> for Blacksburg, we had numerous people applying from out of the country,
> with requests like, "I'm coming to teach about X," or "I'm coming to
> learn about how to run a FUDCon," "I'm coming to engage with other
> people from the teams I work on," etc., without any very specific,
> concrete deliverables. I think these requests (and grants) need to be
> cut down drastically, or we should reconsider the idea of just having
> one or two large fudcons a year, bring in as many people as we can, and
> push people to enable smaller one-day events for outreach in their regions.

I'll give FUDCon Panama as another example here. From what I recall we
held 3 subsidy meetings and we didn't deny a single request. All
requests were approved until we reached the budget limit for travel
subsidies. The only tickets not approved were those ones with missing
information. IMHO this is not alright. In those meetings some people
fell bad to deny requests or to give argumentation why one should not
go. This happens for a number of reasons that vary from the vision of
the event focus to personal identification with someone and even fear to
pick up a fight.

> In EMEA and NA, we have a fairly good handle on what events we
> traditionally go to. Less so in APAC and LATAM, though there are
> certainly events like LCA and FISL where we traditionally send people.
> What I would love to see is a proactive approach to spending each year -
> where each region gets a handle on (a) What events they likely expect to
> attend, (b) How much they expect to spend at each one, including any
> sponsorship (and I don't believe we should shy away from .org or
> lower-level sponsorship of some events), (c) Swag planning, (d) Buffer
> for additional, non-listed events, or thoughts of allocating towards
> additional events that we haven't attended in the past, (e) Other stuff
> - shipping, media, etc.

In LATAM getting budget and space for Fedora in events such FISL has
been difficult. First because the booth is way too expensive and does
not fit well in a FAD budget or general event budget. Some years ago we
relied in local Red Hat office support to handle this, but it's not
every year they offer this support. Last year they didn't and we ended
with a very limited space. Other problem was that budget liberation was
very slow and the airfares were bought a couple weeks before the event,
what frequently led to more expensive tickets. Fortunately this was
solved by the community credit cards and for Latinoware we already had a
smoother process.

In addition, handling subsidy requests for events such FISL has always
been a struggle. Since budget is tight and a lot of people want to
attend, some requests are declined. Before last year, regional
leadership used to choose who were the people to be subsidized, and
people who did not get the subsidies always got mad even if the criteria
was clear. Last year FAmSCo approved the subsidies and a couple folks
got mad anyway, what takes us back to my previous point: people fear
declining requests, specially community-only members. A good process
will reduce the amount of complaining about denied requests but will not
erase it. People who are entitled to make the decision need to keep in
mind that someone might take it personally, or might fell frustrated and
start to throw rocks. As our project grows regionally and globally we
will need to start declining more requests and we need to be prepared to
deal with consequences.

> And I don't know what the shape of Famsco reporting is right now;
> perhaps we need to get back to a focus on it, and if famsco isn't
> willing to do it, get a group together who is willing to put in the
> effort. But that's been a major piece of the accountability, and
> additionally, an important piece that Max, or Harish, or the FPL can
> show to Red Hat and say, "Here's the list of where your money went, and
> how it was used, and why continuing to invest here is important."

The regional budget breakdown was removed from last FAmSCo report
because it was outdated. The total sum didn't match the regional values.
I know that Harish is working on updating it and when things are back
into shape it will be included again because this is really important
indeed and FAmSCo realize that.

Regards,
--
Igor Pires Soares
Fedora Ambassador (Brazil) - Member of FAmSCo
Fedora I18N/L10N QA
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 11:57 AM
Joerg Simon
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On 14.02.2012 22:06, Max Spevack wrote:
> For folks who are new, the historical data backing up what Robyn is
> saying is here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Accounting and the pages linked off of
> it. My sense is that this transparency angle has really stopped since I
> turned in my Red Hat credit card. I would like to see it ressurected in
> some form for the Red Hat fiscal year beginning on March 1. That
> financial transparency is an important underpinning of Fedora's
> community structure.

there was a meeting to deal exactly with the transparency problem that
we all see and there are some deliverables:
<http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-01-26/budget_meeting.2012-01-26-14.01.html>

The situation with budget overall is better with the CommCards but still
in bad shape - i still have to deal with payment issues from early 2011
which are not payed yet.
That *let us look unreliable*!!! I do not know if this means something
in other parts of the world?

I can not understand why "a company who is doing great software, but is
so bad with internal processes" is not able to hire a person (maybe part
time) to take care for such easy an trivial things! Fedora Position at
RedHat exist but with no feedback to the candidates who applied to for
the jobs - as example:
http://iquaid.org/2011/09/07/new-community-manager-position-on-my-team/
the position itself is no longer available ... who got the job? ... why
candidates who applied got no answer?


cu Joerg
--
Joerg (kital) Simon
jsimon@fedoraproject.org
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JoergSimon
http://kitall.blogspot.com
Key Fingerprint:
3691 0989 2DCA 58A2 8D1F 2CAC C823 558E 5B5B 5688

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 12:30 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:17:38AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:49:34 -0700,
> Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > (That said, we have seen a dramatic drop in the number of FADs
> > sponsored; I don't think this is necessarily a sign of anything
> > concrete, except perhaps (a) people have forgotten that this
> > resource exists, or (b) we have fewer people working on new projects
> > or solving problems that they are excited about, and can produce
> > results face-to-face more rapidly. I suspect the latter may be the
> > case, and is certainly troubling, but is a topic not really for this
> > email.)
>
> My (possibly selective) memory is that Paul instigated a lot of the FADs
> when he was FPL. Since his job change he has had to cut back his time and
> probably isn't in a position to see the needs and push for setting up FADs
> as much as he used to be able to.

In one sense, Bruno's statement confused me, because I only recall
helping to drive a handful of FADs when I was FPL. Then in another
sense it made me feel happy someone thought I was doing a good job
with those. At least I think that's what he meant, so thanks for the
kind words Bruno! :-)

But in truth, I recall most of the FADs during my FPL time being
driven by other Fedora contributors. What I do recall doing is
talking about FADs often, and when good ideas came up, suggesting to
the key contributors involved that they should organize a FAD event
once they had a plan for the work.

It does seem like there were more of them a couple years ago than
perhaps there were in the last year. But unfortunately the last part
of Bruno's statement is only too accurate; I definitely don't get the
time for Fedora these days that I used to. However, since I didn't
really drive many of the FADs personally I suspect

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 01:34 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On 02/15/2012 06:30 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:17:38AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:49:34 -0700,
Robyn Bergeron<rbergero@redhat.com> wrote:

(That said, we have seen a dramatic drop in the number of FADs
sponsored; I don't think this is necessarily a sign of anything
concrete, except perhaps (a) people have forgotten that this
resource exists, or (b) we have fewer people working on new projects
or solving problems that they are excited about, and can produce
results face-to-face more rapidly. I suspect the latter may be the
case, and is certainly troubling, but is a topic not really for this
email.)

My (possibly selective) memory is that Paul instigated a lot of the FADs
when he was FPL. Since his job change he has had to cut back his time and
probably isn't in a position to see the needs and push for setting up FADs
as much as he used to be able to.

In one sense, Bruno's statement confused me, because I only recall
helping to drive a handful of FADs when I was FPL. Then in another
sense it made me feel happy someone thought I was doing a good job
with those. At least I think that's what he meant, so thanks for the
kind words Bruno! :-)

But in truth, I recall most of the FADs during my FPL time being
driven by other Fedora contributors. What I do recall doing is
talking about FADs often, and when good ideas came up, suggesting to
the key contributors involved that they should organize a FAD event
once they had a plan for the work.
And much of the framework for "having a FAD" was actually set up by,
IIRC, yourself and Community Architecture - the documentation is fairly
comprehensive (although perhaps hard to find or know about without
people broadly advertising or suggesting it.)


My first FAD... well, Fedora event, period -- was the Marketing FAD we
did in March, 2010. Mel Chua and I mostly drove the arrangement of
that, with Mel doing the pointing of, "Yes, you can," and
credit-carding, and myself doing agenda-driving with plenty of
encouragement from Paul and Mel. It was incredibly valuable, both from
a productivity as well as team-building/bonding experience -- and I
think that we, collectively, simply don't take enough opportunities to
do these, don't point it out as a resource to or encourage it amongst
others.



It does seem like there were more of them a couple years ago than
perhaps there were in the last year. But unfortunately the last part
of Bruno's statement is only too accurate; I definitely don't get the
time for Fedora these days that I used to. However, since I didn't
really drive many of the FADs personally I suspect

QUICK! Sentence-finishing FAD! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I think I do want to amend my previous statement about quantity of FADs
a bit: We do continue to have FADs -- I think we are having fewer of
them that are focused on solving a particular problem, and perhaps more
of them that are oriented as "Mini-FUDCons."


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FADs#Past_FADs

Not saying that that is a bad or good thing, just pointing out that I
previously spoke incorrectly.

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 02:42 PM
"Jared K. Smith"
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@redhat.com> wrote:
> We do continue to have FADs -- I think we are having fewer of them that
> are focused on solving a particular problem, and perhaps more of them that
> are oriented as "Mini-FUDCons."

Hence my comments in my "State of Fedora" address at FUDCon Blacksburg
about improving the quality of FADs. During my time as FPL, I saw
several of FADs that didn't have a clear goal, any clear metrics to
gauge whether or not the FAD was successful, and no clear reporting
after the FAD (except for a few blog posts that said "I went to
such-and-such event"). My first experience with a FAD was a FAD for
getting the Fedora Talk server up and running. While the Fedora Talk
service was eventually shut down due to lack of use, I felt the FAD
was successful because it had a very limited goal, we had a way of
measuring whether or not the goal was being achieved, and we reported
back after the FAD on what we did and what we learned.

In my view, a FAD has to be about more than just getting people to
events -- there has to be an underlying reason why sending someone to
the FAD is a good use of Fedora resources.

--
Jared Smith
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 03:18 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On 02/15/2012 08:42 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Robyn Bergeron<rbergero@redhat.com> wrote:

We do continue to have FADs -- I think we are having fewer of them that
are focused on solving a particular problem, and perhaps more of them that
are oriented as "Mini-FUDCons."

Hence my comments in my "State of Fedora" address at FUDCon Blacksburg
about improving the quality of FADs. During my time as FPL, I saw
several of FADs that didn't have a clear goal, any clear metrics to
gauge whether or not the FAD was successful, and no clear reporting
after the FAD (except for a few blog posts that said "I went to
such-and-such event"). My first experience with a FAD was a FAD for
getting the Fedora Talk server up and running. While the Fedora Talk
service was eventually shut down due to lack of use, I felt the FAD
was successful because it had a very limited goal, we had a way of
measuring whether or not the goal was being achieved, and we reported
back after the FAD on what we did and what we learned.

In my view, a FAD has to be about more than just getting people to
events -- there has to be an underlying reason why sending someone to
the FAD is a good use of Fedora resources.
Yes, and a clear list of goals, and follow-up afterwards on what was
accomplished.


While I think that the quality of FADs is a problem, I think it takes
somewhat of a backseat to the fact that (a) people who do have goals
don't realize that there are resources available that they can make use
of in a good way, or if they do, there may be questions as to how they
obtain said resources, and (b) more generally, if people are confused
or questioning under what circumstances they can accomplish things -- or
more generally, not aware that they are empowered to have SIGs, or solve
problems, without asking or getting permission -- they won't be taking
the initiatives to go ahead and *have* a FAD. If we aren't, as leaders,
going out and encouraging and inspiring and lending a helping hand
occasionally by saying, "I like your idea, have you thought about taking
it further? What do you see in Fedora that could be improved?" -
newcomers to the community aren't going to know, or in some cases, have
the confidence, or feel that they have support, to say, I have an idea,
and it's freaking awesome, and who wants to join me?


Those are the baby steps on the way to having a FAD. Having some
inspiration, having a group gathered around an idea, and knowing that
there are resources available. And most importantly: being empowered to
make change, and drive innovation, and further the community, and
knowing you can do so, without asking permission to have an idea.
Eventually, some people will have FADs; others won't, but the seeds have
to be there.

--
Jared Smith
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 06:33 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:34:18AM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 06:30 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:17:38AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:49:34 -0700,
> >> Robyn Bergeron<rbergero@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>(That said, we have seen a dramatic drop in the number of FADs
> >>>sponsored; I don't think this is necessarily a sign of anything
> >>>concrete, except perhaps (a) people have forgotten that this
> >>>resource exists, or (b) we have fewer people working on new projects
> >>>or solving problems that they are excited about, and can produce
> >>>results face-to-face more rapidly. I suspect the latter may be the
> >>>case, and is certainly troubling, but is a topic not really for this
> >>>email.)
> >>My (possibly selective) memory is that Paul instigated a lot of the FADs
> >>when he was FPL. Since his job change he has had to cut back his time and
> >>probably isn't in a position to see the needs and push for setting up FADs
> >>as much as he used to be able to.
> >In one sense, Bruno's statement confused me, because I only recall
> >helping to drive a handful of FADs when I was FPL. Then in another
> >sense it made me feel happy someone thought I was doing a good job
> >with those. At least I think that's what he meant, so thanks for the
> >kind words Bruno! :-)
> >
> >But in truth, I recall most of the FADs during my FPL time being
> >driven by other Fedora contributors. What I do recall doing is
> >talking about FADs often, and when good ideas came up, suggesting to
> >the key contributors involved that they should organize a FAD event
> >once they had a plan for the work.
> And much of the framework for "having a FAD" was actually set up by,
> IIRC, yourself and Community Architecture - the documentation is
> fairly comprehensive (although perhaps hard to find or know about
> without people broadly advertising or suggesting it.)
>
> My first FAD... well, Fedora event, period -- was the Marketing FAD
> we did in March, 2010. Mel Chua and I mostly drove the arrangement
> of that, with Mel doing the pointing of, "Yes, you can," and
> credit-carding, and myself doing agenda-driving with plenty of
> encouragement from Paul and Mel. It was incredibly valuable, both
> from a productivity as well as team-building/bonding experience --
> and I think that we, collectively, simply don't take enough
> opportunities to do these, don't point it out as a resource to or
> encourage it amongst others.
>
> >It does seem like there were more of them a couple years ago than
> >perhaps there were in the last year. But unfortunately the last part
> >of Bruno's statement is only too accurate; I definitely don't get the
> >time for Fedora these days that I used to. However, since I didn't
> >really drive many of the FADs personally I suspect
> QUICK! Sentence-finishing FAD! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Whoops, should have concluded "they don't block on me. ;-)"

> I think I do want to amend my previous statement about quantity of
> FADs a bit: We do continue to have FADs -- I think we are having
> fewer of them that are focused on solving a particular problem, and
> perhaps more of them that are oriented as "Mini-FUDCons."
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FADs#Past_FADs
>
> Not saying that that is a bad or good thing, just pointing out that
> I previously spoke incorrectly.

2010: 15
2011: 10
2012: 9 (2 of them virtual)

We certainly could have more, and I agree that solving a particular
problem is usually the best motivator for having a successful one.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-18-2012, 07:58 PM
inode0
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares@gmail.com> wrote:
> Em Ter, 2012-02-14 ąs 07:49 -0700, Robyn Bergeron escreveu:
>> However, I have some additional input here. *For the Tempe FUDCon, we
>> made the case that we were having additional people from each region
>> come to participate to learn how to run a FUDCon, and to bring that
>> knowledge back to their respective regions. *And to that, I say, MISSION
>> ACCOMPLISHED, we now have plenty of people with the knowledge. And yet,
>> for Blacksburg, we had numerous people applying from out of the country,
>> with requests like, "I'm coming to teach about X," or "I'm coming to
>> learn about how to run a FUDCon," "I'm coming to engage with other
>> people from the teams I work on," etc., without any very specific,
>> concrete deliverables. *I think these requests (and grants) need to be
>> cut down drastically, or we should reconsider the idea of just having
>> one or two large fudcons a year, bring in as many people as we can, and
>> push people to enable smaller one-day events for outreach in their regions.
>
> I'll give FUDCon Panama as another example here. From what I recall we
> held 3 subsidy meetings and we didn't deny a single request. All
> requests were approved until we reached the budget limit for travel
> subsidies. The only tickets not approved were those ones with missing
> information. IMHO this is not alright. In those meetings some people
> fell bad to deny requests or to give argumentation why one should not
> go. This happens for a number of reasons that vary from the vision of
> the event focus to personal identification with someone and even fear to
> pick up a fight.

Hi Igor,

I really understand this too. Making these particular decisions in the
community is very awkward and can easily result in hurt feelings and
contributors questioning the fairness of the process which is
especially hard on those involved who are trying their best to be
fair.

One of the things that has always seemed unfair to me about the
process is that generally tickets are considered in the order they are
created. I don't understand why being quick to ask for a subsidy
should make it more likely you will receive a subsidy. That isn't
mentioned as a consideration anywhere in our subsidy guidelines as
being something we should consider or weigh. In the past I have
wondered how we could improve this so the requests are considered in a
more sensible order.

I have only one idea and it is far from perfect as it adds more people
and more process to what already exists. But I'll toss it out for your
consideration. Could we just have a request deadline? At the point the
deadline arrives we shake the requests up in a hat so the order they
came in is irrelevant to the rest of the process. Either the folks
already involved or some other volunteers would then go through *all*
of the requests ranking them based loosely on the criteria stated in
the subsidy guidelines. We sum these rankings up in order to determine
the order the requests are considered. My hope is that this would
result in more high value requests being funded and fewer at the
margin before the limit is reached. Some special consideration needs
to be retained in the process for those who are fairly local or
otherwise very inexpensive for us to help and for those with special
skills that might be desired at the particular event. And I think all
requests for travel between regions (as defined by Fedora) should be
dealt with as special cases and not as a part of the general process.

I'm not sure that is something we could easily do but maybe it will
give someone else a seed for a better idea.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-19-2012, 05:07 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On 02/18/2012 01:58 PM, inode0 wrote:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Igor Pires Soares<igorsoares@gmail.com> wrote:

Em Ter, 2012-02-14 ąs 07:49 -0700, Robyn Bergeron escreveu:

However, I have some additional input here. For the Tempe FUDCon, we
made the case that we were having additional people from each region
come to participate to learn how to run a FUDCon, and to bring that
knowledge back to their respective regions. And to that, I say, MISSION
ACCOMPLISHED, we now have plenty of people with the knowledge. And yet,
for Blacksburg, we had numerous people applying from out of the country,
with requests like, "I'm coming to teach about X," or "I'm coming to
learn about how to run a FUDCon," "I'm coming to engage with other
people from the teams I work on," etc., without any very specific,
concrete deliverables. I think these requests (and grants) need to be
cut down drastically, or we should reconsider the idea of just having
one or two large fudcons a year, bring in as many people as we can, and
push people to enable smaller one-day events for outreach in their regions.

I'll give FUDCon Panama as another example here. From what I recall we
held 3 subsidy meetings and we didn't deny a single request. All
requests were approved until we reached the budget limit for travel
subsidies. The only tickets not approved were those ones with missing
information. IMHO this is not alright. In those meetings some people
fell bad to deny requests or to give argumentation why one should not
go. This happens for a number of reasons that vary from the vision of
the event focus to personal identification with someone and even fear to
pick up a fight.

Hi Igor,

I really understand this too. Making these particular decisions in the
community is very awkward and can easily result in hurt feelings and
contributors questioning the fairness of the process which is
especially hard on those involved who are trying their best to be
fair.

One of the things that has always seemed unfair to me about the
process is that generally tickets are considered in the order they are
created. I don't understand why being quick to ask for a subsidy
should make it more likely you will receive a subsidy. That isn't
mentioned as a consideration anywhere in our subsidy guidelines as
being something we should consider or weigh. In the past I have
wondered how we could improve this so the requests are considered in a
more sensible order.

I have only one idea and it is far from perfect as it adds more people
and more process to what already exists. But I'll toss it out for your
consideration. Could we just have a request deadline? At the point the
deadline arrives we shake the requests up in a hat so the order they
came in is irrelevant to the rest of the process. Either the folks
already involved or some other volunteers would then go through *all*
of the requests ranking them based loosely on the criteria stated in
the subsidy guidelines. We sum these rankings up in order to determine
the order the requests are considered. My hope is that this would
result in more high value requests being funded and fewer at the
margin before the limit is reached. Some special consideration needs
to be retained in the process for those who are fairly local or
otherwise very inexpensive for us to help and for those with special
skills that might be desired at the particular event. And I think all
requests for travel between regions (as defined by Fedora) should be
dealt with as special cases and not as a part of the general process.

I'm not sure that is something we could easily do but maybe it will
give someone else a seed for a better idea.

So, a few thoughts:

* We already have request deadlines - or we have at least attempted to
in the past. Perhaps we just need to be more firm.
* I think the ranking thing is reasonably decent - though I believe we
run the risk of potentially offending people by labelling them, or their
contributions, as more or less important than another contributor.
* We often let things revolve around "the limit" - I think we should put
in far more effort into knowing what that limit is before we start
granting subsidies, rather than having it be a moving target, as that
makes it rather difficult to prioritize.


It does seem to me, though, that every FUDCon has its own circumstances,
not to mention priorities and goals in itself, and I have the gut
feeling that there is not really a one-size-fits-all solution. Perhaps
loose guidelines - as those you mentioned above - and even calling them
recommendations - is really the best, and having the event owner(s) lay
out on a wiki page the information about how and why things will be
prioritized PRIOR TO THE SUBSIDY MEETING might be reasonable, rather
than taking a heavy-handed, all-will-abide approach.


-robyn

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org