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 02-20-2012, 04:49 PM
Igor Pires Soares
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

Em Sáb, 2012-02-18 às 14:58 -0600, inode0 escreveu:
> 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.

Hi John,

I think that we definitely need to establish a deadline. As Robyn
mentioned we already have done that, but need to be more firm about it.
In the past even with a deadline some people who filed their requests
late got their tickets reviewed and approved anyway.

The idea of ranking the requests sounds perfectly reasonable but we need
to be very clear about who is eligible to make this rank. In the case of
FUDCons I think that FAmSCo, local organizers and the FPL should be
directly involved. But for regional major events such FISL or FOSDEM I
don't think that is feasible to involve all of them in all events. In
such cases I'd rather involve a regional mentor and a FAmSCo member who
might be willing to help in this particular event. Together they could
go through all the requests as you said and present the final result in
a wiki page, for instance.

For sure some people will be offended with the evaluation made by the
eligible ones and might question the fairness and the transparency of
the process. From my past experiences there is no easy way to deal with
it. It needs tact and time for people to cool off.

--
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 02-20-2012, 05:26 PM
inode0
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Igor Pires Soares
<igorsoares@gmail.com> wrote:
> Em Sáb, 2012-02-18 às 14:58 -0600, inode0 escreveu:
>> 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.
>
> Hi John,
>
> I think that we definitely need to establish a deadline. As Robyn
> mentioned we already have done that, but need to be more firm about it.
> In the past even with a deadline some people who filed their requests
> late got their tickets reviewed and approved anyway.

Let me be more clear. I know we always have deadlines. But what I
really want is for *everyone* who meets those deadlines to be treated
as if they all did that at the same moment so the order of requests is
no longer a factor at all.

> The idea of ranking the requests sounds perfectly reasonable but we need
> to be very clear about who is eligible to make this rank. In the case of
> FUDCons I think that FAmSCo, local organizers and the FPL should be
> directly involved. But for regional major events such FISL or FOSDEM I
> don't think that is feasible to involve all of them in all events. In
> such cases I'd rather involve a regional mentor and a FAmSCo member who
> might be willing to help in this particular event. Together they could
> go through all the requests as you said and present the final result in
> a wiki page, for instance.

Let me also be more clear about this. The goal of this ranking is
really only to focus attention on what would normally be easy, high
value, requests earlier in the process. And to stop penalizing someone
who tries to find other funding until the last minute when they add
their request to the end of the current queue. It isn't meant to be at
all binding on those making the approvals.

The local organizers and the Fedora Project itself will have goals for
any event like FUDCon and making sure those goals can be achieved will
often involve travel subsidies being used to support those who will
help achieve those goals. So I can imagine a process where once the
deadline is met the group making funding decisions might begin with
consideration of some candidates who fit into special circumstances
like (a) they are necessary/valuable to achieving a goal set for the
event or (b) they are local and will be helping with various aspects
of making the event happen. Then perhaps would begin the process going
through the rest in some order. The order I would prefer is one that
helps sort candidates for subsidies into something more reasonable
than the date of request, even random would be better than that.

If we really do want to evaluate subsidy requests based on the
criteria on the wiki, we do need to in some way consider all the
candidates at once and pick from that pool a selection of people who
will most benefit the event. Going through them one at a time in any
order without some meta-evaluation will lead to what we've seen where
it mostly comes down to are you considered before the funding runs
out.

> For sure some people will be offended with the evaluation made by the
> eligible ones and might question the fairness and the transparency of
> the process. From my past experiences there is no easy way to deal with
> it. It needs tact and time for people to cool off.

We'll probably have to live with that result to some extent. But I'd
like to stop living with the result that people making the funding
decisions are themselves questioning the process used and whether it
was fair to everyone.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-21-2012, 12:19 AM
Igor Pires Soares
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

Em Seg, 2012-02-20 às 12:26 -0600, inode0 escreveu:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Igor Pires Soares
> Let me be more clear. I know we always have deadlines. But what I
> really want is for *everyone* who meets those deadlines to be treated
> as if they all did that at the same moment so the order of requests is
> no longer a factor at all.

I get it and totally agree with it. A request placed before doesn't mean
that it's more valuable than others in any way. But in addition to that
we need to make sure that those deadlines will be firmly respected.

> > The idea of ranking the requests sounds perfectly reasonable but we need
> > to be very clear about who is eligible to make this rank. In the case of
> > FUDCons I think that FAmSCo, local organizers and the FPL should be
> > directly involved. But for regional major events such FISL or FOSDEM I
> > don't think that is feasible to involve all of them in all events. In
> > such cases I'd rather involve a regional mentor and a FAmSCo member who
> > might be willing to help in this particular event. Together they could
> > go through all the requests as you said and present the final result in
> > a wiki page, for instance.
>
> Let me also be more clear about this. The goal of this ranking is
> really only to focus attention on what would normally be easy, high
> value, requests earlier in the process. And to stop penalizing someone
> who tries to find other funding until the last minute when they add
> their request to the end of the current queue. It isn't meant to be at
> all binding on those making the approvals.

I agree that the ranking will help to focus on more appropriated aspects
instead of the order the requests were filled. That is totally
reasonable. My point is that some criteria should be adopted to define
who will be entitled to compose the ranking, since it will be highly
subjective. We need to make sure it will be composed in a transparent
and legitimate way.

> The local organizers and the Fedora Project itself will have goals for
> any event like FUDCon and making sure those goals can be achieved will
> often involve travel subsidies being used to support those who will
> help achieve those goals. So I can imagine a process where once the
> deadline is met the group making funding decisions might begin with
> consideration of some candidates who fit into special circumstances
> like (a) they are necessary/valuable to achieving a goal set for the
> event or (b) they are local and will be helping with various aspects
> of making the event happen. Then perhaps would begin the process going
> through the rest in some order. The order I would prefer is one that
> helps sort candidates for subsidies into something more reasonable
> than the date of request, even random would be better than that.

Usually the organizers and people helping with different aspects of the
event fit in circumstance (a). For the others a ranking-based
sorting will fit well, indeed.

> > For sure some people will be offended with the evaluation made by the
> > eligible ones and might question the fairness and the transparency of
> > the process. From my past experiences there is no easy way to deal with
> > it. It needs tact and time for people to cool off.
>
> We'll probably have to live with that result to some extent. But I'd
> like to stop living with the result that people making the funding
> decisions are themselves questioning the process used and whether it
> was fair to everyone.

We improved the subsidy process a lot during the last couple years but
it will be a long way until we establish a process that everyone
involved in making decisions agree that it's the ideal process. IMHO we
will learn by doing and I would love to see the outcome of this ranking
process in practice for our next FUDCon.

--
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 02-21-2012, 12:42 AM
inode0
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares@gmail.com> wrote:
> Em Seg, 2012-02-20 às 12:26 -0600, inode0 escreveu:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Igor Pires Soares
>> Let me be more clear. I know we always have deadlines. But what I
>> really want is for *everyone* who meets those deadlines to be treated
>> as if they all did that at the same moment so the order of requests is
>> no longer a factor at all.
>
> I get it and totally agree with it. A request placed before doesn't mean
> that it's more valuable than others in any way. But in addition to that
> we need to make sure that those deadlines will be firmly respected.

I agree with your point too.

>> > The idea of ranking the requests sounds perfectly reasonable but we need
>> > to be very clear about who is eligible to make this rank. In the case of
>> > FUDCons I think that FAmSCo, local organizers and the FPL should be
>> > directly involved. But for regional major events such FISL or FOSDEM I
>> > don't think that is feasible to involve all of them in all events. In
>> > such cases I'd rather involve a regional mentor and a FAmSCo member who
>> > might be willing to help in this particular event. Together they could
>> > go through all the requests as you said and present the final result in
>> > a wiki page, for instance.
>>
>> Let me also be more clear about this. The goal of this ranking is
>> really only to focus attention on what would normally be easy, high
>> value, requests earlier in the process. And to stop penalizing someone
>> who tries to find other funding until the last minute when they add
>> their request to the end of the current queue. It isn't meant to be at
>> all binding on those making the approvals.
>
> I agree that the ranking will help to focus on more appropriated aspects
> instead of the order the requests were filled. That is totally
> reasonable. My point is that some criteria should be adopted to define
> who will be entitled to compose the ranking, since it will be highly
> subjective. We need to make sure it will be composed in a transparent
> and legitimate way.

I don't have a suggestion about a criterion for who decides but I do
have one for how they decide and that is explained in our current
travel subsidy guidelines here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees

It doesn't need to be a separate group who does this, it could be the
same group who is making the funding decisions. I just think we'd do a
better job if we made one pass through all the requests individually
before as a group evaluating them one at a time.

Here is one possible way I have imagined this working. Let's say there
are 5 contributors involved in making the decisions. We clean out the
special cases that we agree on first. Then with the rest we each rank
them in some range (say 1 to 3 with 1 being high value, 2 being very
high value, and 3 being unbelievably Beefy Miracle with extra relish
value). Sum up the individual rankings and as a group work through all
the requests in the order this produces. (Probably still need wiggle
room in the process but that is the general idea.)

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-25-2012, 05:11 PM
Igor Pires Soares
 
Default Sponsoring event attendees

Em Seg, 2012-02-20 às 19:42 -0600, inode0 escreveu:
> I don't have a suggestion about a criterion for who decides but I do
> have one for how they decide and that is explained in our current
> travel subsidy guidelines here:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees
>
> It doesn't need to be a separate group who does this, it could be the
> same group who is making the funding decisions. I just think we'd do a
> better job if we made one pass through all the requests individually
> before as a group evaluating them one at a time.
>
> Here is one possible way I have imagined this working. Let's say there
> are 5 contributors involved in making the decisions. We clean out the
> special cases that we agree on first. Then with the rest we each rank
> them in some range (say 1 to 3 with 1 being high value, 2 being very
> high value, and 3 being unbelievably Beefy Miracle with extra relish
> value). Sum up the individual rankings and as a group work through all
> the requests in the order this produces. (Probably still need wiggle
> room in the process but that is the general idea.)

That is a good suggestion. I like this being a result of a group voting,
it gives legitimacy to the process. In addition, a 1-3 or 1-5 range
would give us a more granular vision than just a +1 or -1, like we
currently do in subsidy meetings.

I would like to hear the opinions and experiences of other FAmSCo
members in order to improve this process. A meeting ticket was opened
for that.

--
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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41 AM.

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