As a FAmSCo member, I think that FAmSCo's scope can be amended and scaled to accomplish what John suggests, especially since it's already been approached during David's term in FAmSCo.<br><br>Whether that would entail just enabling FAmSCo, as it stands now, wider authority over funding or whether it would mean restructuring FAmSCo in order to avoid crearting a separate funding body -- and believe me, I'm all for NOT creating a separate entity -- would probably be the best way to proceed, if this is the course of action we take.<br>
<br>Larry Cafiero<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:06 AM, David Nalley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david@gnsa.us">david@gnsa.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:03 PM, inode0 <<a href="mailto:inode0@gmail.com">inode0@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Fellow ambassadors,<br>
><br>
> As one of a large group of ambassadors and non-ambassadors who is<br>
> committed to empowering Fedora contributors to achieve their goals and<br>
> who has been working to make budget available to them to help them in<br>
> their endeavors I think it is time to rethink how we are trying to<br>
> accomplish this.<br>
><br>
> During the time I've been involved what might be thought of as<br>
> discretionary Fedora budget has been the province of the Red Hat<br>
> Community Architecture team and FAmSCo as portions of those funds have<br>
> been delegated in the past. There has been a consistent and I think<br>
> very positive direction of pushing budget decisions closer and closer<br>
> to those who need the funds throughout my years with the project.<br>
> There are still issues involving paying for things (who can, what is<br>
> needed, getting reimbursed, etc.) and those issues are being worked on<br>
> currently. I want to be clear those aren't the issues I am now<br>
> concerned about.<br>
><br>
> After much discussion with new and old friends from around the world<br>
> at FUDCon Tempe I've concluded that FAmSCo probably isn't going to be<br>
> the best place for non-ambassador budget decisions to happen as we<br>
> expand our efforts at increasing funding of various new events (FADs<br>
> with explicit work product to be achieved for example) as well as<br>
> non-event funding of efforts as they might arise.<br>
><br>
> While FAmSCo has done a superb job with budget issues and I expect<br>
> will continue to do so, as more budget decisions move from the Red Hat<br>
> Community Architecture team into the Fedora Project proper, to many<br>
> people it just feels wrong for it to flow through an ambassador group<br>
> to the rest of the community. As an example, for a packager who isn't<br>
> engaged with the ambassador community but who wants to organize a FAD<br>
> asking FAmSCo makes no more sense than asking the Documentation team<br>
> or QA. Some people are quite offended by this and while I don't think<br>
> they should be the reality is that they are, it just doesn't feel<br>
> right to them.<br>
><br>
> There was a subtle suggestion at FADNA last year that we consider a<br>
> new organization. I was resistant to this, I thought FAmSCo has stuff<br>
> in place and has experience dealing with budgets, etc. Now after<br>
> talking to more people, especially non-ambassadors, I think I was<br>
> wrong to be resistant. Now I think that if we can modify our structure<br>
> a bit to encourage more engagement from more contributors and have<br>
> those contributors be comfortable asking for funds we should do it.<br>
> There are lots of ways this could be done, I'm going to suggest one<br>
> possibility here.<br>
><br>
> We could create a budget or finance specific group but I think we<br>
> might want to consider one with a broader community mission. I'm<br>
> tempted to suggest a Fedora Community Architecture group, but I'm not<br>
> sure that really captures what I want. I don't want another elected<br>
> body and would like to see this group grow in a way similar to the<br>
> packaging committee (if my understanding of that one is correct).<br>
> Perhaps the Red Hat Community Architecture team (who will necessarily<br>
> be working with whoever is making budget decisions) could seed the<br>
> team with one or two people from wherever in the project. Those folks<br>
> could expand the team to include representatives from various areas<br>
> within the project. They or a subgroup they designate can be tasked<br>
> with helping solve funding issues for the Fedora community at large (I<br>
> think of this as non-ambassador event/swag/media sorts of things).<br>
><br>
> The benefits I see of doing this are that it helps the Red Hat<br>
> Community Architecture folks continue to move more funding decisions<br>
> into the Fedora Project proper. It gives contributors a place to go to<br>
> get funding for their events or other needs that isn't tied to a<br>
> specific group within the project, having a neutral nature by its<br>
> composition. If and when we get to the point that hard decisions need<br>
> to be made about whether to fund FAD X or FAD Y, I hope this body as<br>
> constructed will have diverse enough understanding of the issues<br>
> related to the work proposed to make informed decisions for the<br>
> benefit of us all.<br>
><br>
> Projects grow, sometimes that natural growth leads to problems no one<br>
> intended. It just happens. I think this is an opportunity to fix one<br>
> problem by taking a small step back and empowering others.<br>
><br>
> Flame away :)<br>
><br>
> John<br>
> --<br>
> ambassadors mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org">ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>Hi John:<br>
<br>
*takes out his flamethrower* :)<br>
So several thoughts strike me.<br>
I would like to see FAmSCo should evolve here to fill the void that<br>
you are talking about, and towards the end of the year 2010 I sent a<br>
few emails to various lists to that effect. When FAmSCo was first<br>
formed there really was a lot more management overhead. Ambassador<br>
were also one of the first groups to have large scale autonomy within<br>
Fedora.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that I can't see FAmSCo-as-it-is-today taking that<br>
role without some level of consternation (and also questions of<br>
constituency.) I also think it's a problem I'd prefer to not see the<br>
Board or FESCo solve (my personal opinion only, even though I am a<br>
board member). At the same time I have a hard time justifying a<br>
completely separate leadership body when FAmSCo will continue to<br>
manage the vast majority of Fedora monies.<br>
<br>
If a separate body were to be formed, I think It'd like to see it take<br>
over FAmSCo's current fiduciary role now, and deal directly with<br>
people doing the work. I have said for a couple of years that I think<br>
the role of FAmSCo as it was originally defined, is largely outdated,<br>
and that FAmSCo.<br>
<br>
You mention a packager who wanted to organize a FAD and I think that<br>
points out a failure within the Ambassadors. Ambassadors should not be<br>
insular. I'll even go so far as to say that as a general rule,<br>
Ambassadors shouldn't be your only point of contribution to Fedora. If<br>
we as ambassadors aren't well known and contributing in the other<br>
areas of Fedora, how do we expect to be able to acclimate new<br>
contributors? or even be able to represent the project as it is?<br>
<br>
FAmSCo, I love to hear your opinion! I think this type of<br>
transformation could be very interesting. I also think it means<br>
thinking way outside of the Ambassador-playground. I'd also urge you<br>
(and others since the FAmSCo archives are open) to go back and read<br>
the conversation the last FAmSCo had<br>
<a href="http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/2010-November/000402.html" target="_blank">http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/2010-November/000402.html</a><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">--<br>
ambassadors mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org">ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>