Next FUDCon in APAC - Change of Process?

[Buddhike Kurera]

Hello folks,

We have started the discussion for the next FUDCon in APAC since it is
always good to plan soon.

This year (2012) we had two candidates, they did lot of work and but
finally one country has elected/ selected to host the event. In that
time we were discussing to eliminate the bidding or make it simple.
Since the effort is total waste in some way. Therefore I think if
there is change of process we need to discuss it now and get it fixed
before starting who host next FUDCon.

I think it is good to decide the region itself who will be the next
host if there are candidates more than one. What I propose is as
follow;

We can identified interested countries first, then we can discuss on
the bi-weekly meeting which is the best area to host the event. Yes if
we need more info to decide then we can ask the teams to have them on
a wiki page like who are the organizing team and so on. ....... Then
considering every aspect we can come to a conclusion avoiding all the
hard work and competition. I dont like going for a election and
voting. i think we need to discuss more and pick the best place
because we need to **spread the project with in the region** and that
is the only goal behind. Therefore without voting it is possible to
discuss with team and come to an mutual agreement through mutual
understanding and so that way we can select the next host with no
disappointing.

I cannot guarantee that this method will work 100% but will give a try
and see. But this is how I see, I know you all have more ideas please
do share them, this is just a suggestion to consider.

Thanks for your attention waiting to read more and more . . . .and
waiting to discuss this on the next bi-weekly as well.

-- 
Regards,
Buddhike Chandradeepa Kurera (bckurera)

Email: bckurera(a)fedoraproject.org | IRC: bckurera | User: Bckurera

[Truong Anh Tuan]

----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Buddhike Kurera" <bckurera(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  To: "ambassadors" <ambassadors(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:36:12 PM
>  Subject: [Ambassadors] Next FUDCon in APAC - Change of Process? 
Hi bckurera et all,

>  This year (2012) we had two candidates, they did lot of work and but
>  finally one country has elected/ selected to host the event. In that
>  time we were discussing to eliminate the bidding or make it simple.
>  Since the effort is total waste in some way. Therefore I think if
>  there is change of process we need to discuss it now and get it fixed
>  before starting who host next FUDCon. 
I personally prefer the current process by reasons:

1. Teams/Cities can raise the sense of initiative themselves. Once they
prepare and propose their bids, they show how active they are.

2. If there are some competitions, preparation would be better and we
face to have a better event.

3. We are a FOSS community. Voting process can keep our democracy. We
can not discuss in a small group to decide who will have chance at a
moment to contribute to Fedora.

Beside that, preparing for everything before proposing bid is also a
good way to increase their contributions to Fedora and FOSS in general.
It's not waste at all.

Kind regards, 
Tuan

[Buddhike Kurera]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Truong Anh. Tuan
<tuanta(a)iwayvietnam.com&gt; wrote:
>  ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Buddhike Kurera" <bckurera(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> > To: "ambassadors" <ambassadors(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:36:12 PM
> > Subject: [Ambassadors] Next FUDCon in APAC - Change of Process?
>
>  Hi bckurera et all,
>
> > This year (2012) we had two candidates, they did lot of work and but
> > finally one country has elected/ selected to host the event. In that
> > time we were discussing to eliminate the bidding or make it simple.
> > Since the effort is total waste in some way. Therefore I think if
> > there is change of process we need to discuss it now and get it fixed
> > before starting who host next FUDCon.
>
>  I personally prefer the current process by reasons:
>
>  1. Teams/Cities can raise the sense of initiative themselves. Once they
>  prepare and propose their bids, they show how active they are.
>
>  2. If there are some competitions, preparation would be better and we
>  face to have a better event.
>
>  3. We are a FOSS community. Voting process can keep our democracy. We
>  can not discuss in a small group to decide who will have chance at a
>  moment to contribute to Fedora.
>
>  Beside that, preparing for everything before proposing bid is also a
>  good way to increase their contributions to Fedora and FOSS in general.
>  It's not waste at all. 
Hello Tuan,

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

My suggestion was based on following facts,

Everything has two sides advantages and disadvantages. As you said "If
there are some competitions, preparation would be better and we face
to have a better event.", but at the other hand competitiveness is not
always doing good. How about getting motivated through work together
rather the competitiveness? Since we are FOSS communities we are
talking much about collaboration but now why a competition?

Since you note about democracy I think that is good APAC regional
contributors decide which team should host rather than a small team
like FAmSCo. I agree with you and that is why my suggestion was there.
The current process is: Calling for bids, regional FAms make comments
on teams, FAmSCo votes and elects a team, that may be different than
what regional FAm agreed, based on that FPL announce the next host. Is
that the democracy you meant?

But I cannot understand preparing best with lot of hard work and then
at the last moment saying "Your team is rejected" how this cannot be a
waste? Yes I think that is good learning point. But what happen if
they demotivated and give up next time with no bidding? As I noted
every thing had advantages and disadvantages. So we need to find out a
best way to select where the next FUDCon is.

The next thing is every team who is interested is well motivated and
ready to take the challenge. But we need to make sure that it is the
best place to host FUDCon. If we need to spread the project in some
specific country or territory we can use the FUDCon as the starting
point, in that case even though the local team is no that good enough
we can support them and make the FUDCon success, in a bidding process
is it realistic?

My suggestion is to make the best decision. Our attempt is not to
measure how capable teams are. We need to **pick the best place that
need more attention and development**. It should be a strategical
decision rather than focusing on the best team with best activeness.
That is why we need to replace competitiveness with collaboration
since we are a FOSS community, I think we need to **get motivated not
by the competitiveness but with the collaboration**.

If we dont have that attitude i think it is time to develop it.....

-- 
Regards,
Buddhike Chandradeepa Kurera (bckurera)

Email: bckurera(a)fedoraproject.org | IRC: bckurera | User: Bckurera

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 03:25 PM, Buddhike Kurera wrote:
>  The current process is: Calling for bids, regional FAms make
> comments
>  on teams, FAmSCo votes and elects a team, that may be different than
>  what regional FAm agreed, 
Why would FAmSCo go against the opinion of the regional leadership?

>  But I cannot understand preparing best with lot of hard work and
> then
>  at the last moment saying "Your team is rejected" 
I think you don't understand the current process.

Teams are supposed to submit a bid before review and decision. They are 
not expected to have everything done.

The latter would be a huge waste indeed, the former is not lost as very 
few things would need redoing for a subsequent bid the next year.

A bid is the **description** of the local city, expected prices, ease of 
travel to and from, etc...

It does not imply having reserved the location, paid for the equipment, 
etc...

Most of the work happens **after** having been selected.

>  If we need to spread the project in some
>  specific country or territory we can use the FUDCon as the starting
>  point, in that case even though the local team is no that good enough
>  we can support them and make the FUDCon success, in a bidding process
>  is it realistic? 
I don't see why that would not already be possible with the current process.

>  We need to **pick the best place that
>  need more attention and development**. It should be a strategical
>  decision rather than focusing on the best team with best activeness. 
Well, there actually needs to be a local active team.

I mean, it would be awesome to have a FUDCon in Hong Kong for example. 
That would be a really great opportunity to grow the local community, 
it's easy and cheap to fly here from all over Asia, it's a door to China,...

But there's no local team, so you may decide that Hong Kong is the most 
strategic place to have a FUDCon next year, it still won't happen. I'm 
not organizing a FUDCon alone.

All in all, you seem to be confused about the current process.

First, for some reason you seem to think that there is a lot of work 
which goes to waste if a team is not selected. That's not true, the work 
really happens after having been selected.

Secondly, you seem to think that the current decision process takes only 
into account one criteria (the strength of the local community 
organizing it), and you seem to want to replace it by only another one 
(the strategic importance of the location).

I think both are important, and can be carefully taken into 
consideration when deciding, along with other important criteria 
(affordability, geopolitical conditions, ...).

And reading the wiki pages, it seems to me that the current process 
already allows for taking all these criteria into account.

Now it might not be how it happens in practice, but then it is an 
implementation problem, not one with the documented process.


-- 
Mathieu

[Buddhike Kurera]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Mathieu Bridon
<bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Friday, September 28, 2012 03:25 PM, Buddhike Kurera wrote:
>
>  Why would FAmSCo go against the opinion of the regional leadership?
>  
Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for your inputs.
I mean it is not happening but as per the process it can be.

>  I think you don't understand the current process.
>  
I did understand and witness it last year :)
>  Teams are supposed to submit a bid before review and decision. They are not
>  expected to have everything done.
>
>  The latter would be a huge waste indeed, the former is not lost as very few
>  things would need redoing for a subsequent bid the next year.
>
>  A bid is the **description** of the local city, expected prices, ease of
>  travel to and from, etc...
>
>  It does not imply having reserved the location, paid for the equipment,
>  etc...
>
>  Most of the work happens **after** having been selected.
>
>
> > If we need to spread the project in some
> > specific country or territory we can use the FUDCon as the starting
> > point, in that case even though the local team is no that good enough
> > we can support them and make the FUDCon success, in a bidding process
> > is it realistic?
>
>
>  I don't see why that would not already be possible with the current process.
>
>
> > We need to **pick the best place that
> > need more attention and development**. It should be a strategical
> > decision rather than focusing on the best team with best activeness.
>
>
>  Well, there actually needs to be a local active team.
>
>  I mean, it would be awesome to have a FUDCon in Hong Kong for example. That
>  would be a really great opportunity to grow the local community, it's easy
>  and cheap to fly here from all over Asia, it's a door to China,...
>
>  But there's no local team, so you may decide that Hong Kong is the most
>  strategic place to have a FUDCon next year, it still won't happen. I'm not
>  organizing a FUDCon alone.
>
>  All in all, you seem to be confused about the current process.
>
>  First, for some reason you seem to think that there is a lot of work which
>  goes to waste if a team is not selected. That's not true, the work really
>  happens after having been selected.
>
>  Secondly, you seem to think that the current decision process takes only
>  into account one criteria (the strength of the local community organizing
>  it), and you seem to want to replace it by only another one (the strategic
>  importance of the location).
>
>  I think both are important, and can be carefully taken into consideration
>  when deciding, along with other important criteria (affordability,
>  geopolitical conditions, ...).
>
>  And reading the wiki pages, it seems to me that the current process already
>  allows for taking all these criteria into account.
>
>  Now it might not be how it happens in practice, but then it is an
>  implementation problem, not one with the documented process. 
That means there is practical difficulty?


-- 
Regards,
Buddhike Chandradeepa Kurera (bckurera)

Email: bckurera(a)fedoraproject.org | IRC: bckurera | User: Bckurera

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 05:20 PM, Buddhike Kurera wrote:
>  On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Mathieu Bridon
>  <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 03:25 PM, Buddhike Kurera wrote:
> >
> > Why would FAmSCo go against the opinion of the regional leadership?
> >
>
>  Hi Mathieu,
>
>  Thanks for your inputs.
>  I mean it is not happening but as per the process it can be. 
And the process should certainly not forbid it.

There could be times where the local leadership doesn't have the global 
vision that FAmSCo has.

So the process should allow it, and the people we elect being reasonable 
and intelligent, they will try their best to listen to the fieldworkers.


> > Now it might not be how it happens in practice, but then it is
> an
> > implementation problem, not one with the documented process.
>
>  That means there is practical difficulty? 
I have no idea what you mean with that sentence.


-- 
Mathieu

[Christopher Meng]

Hong Kong team?I think Fedora should hold FUDCon in China.Mainland has more
people.

-- 


*Yours sincerely,*
*Christopher Meng*

Ambassador/Contributor of Fedora Project and many others.
http://cicku.me
http://mirrors.cicku.me

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 09:56 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  Hong Kong team?I think Fedora should hold FUDCon in China.Mainland
> has
>  more people. 
First, please read my email again, I said myself that there is no Hong 
Kong team.

Second, if you want a FUDCon in China, please do it.

Finally, this has nothing to do with this thread, so please open a new 
thread when you want to talk about something else.


-- 
Mathieu

[Ankur Sinha]

Hi folks,

I think it's time to make a decision on this change and run with it.
It's been a month since the thread opened, and even longer since
Buddhike has been working on this. The release period is crawling up on
us, and it'll be good to strike out items off our TODO list already. 

Buddhike, will you be available for the IRC meeting on 27th?

Everyone, who'd like to have a say in the decision, please make it a
point to attend the meeting and take your stand. If you cannot make it,
please mail the list with your opinion and we'll ensure it's pointed out
during the meeting. 

I personally agree with Matthieu. I think the current FUDCon bid process
works, and works well. Like he's pointed out, you aren't supposed to
have all the work done before you bid. Instead, you're supposed to show
that your location and team is the *fittest*, and best prepared to host
the event. This does not, in *any* way imply that the other bids are not
fit enough. The winning bid just has more chances of hosting a better
event. 

Again, it's most important to take the decision constructively, rather
than to feel dismayed and/or betrayed even.  The process does *not*
define how one reacts to the decision, it only helps you make it. It is
our responsibility to understand the idea behind the process.

Having only one bid, even if it's decided by the entire community has
severe limitations IMO (right from my skull):

1. Without competing bids, how do you compare costs? I.e, how do you
decide if a location is cheaper than another, when there's only one
location?

If APAC is going to compare locations before making their decision
according to the newly-proposed guidelines, how is this different from
the bidding process in any way?

2. How do you grow? The selection process is not arbitrary. Competing
bids get a chance to see what they could have done better and in the
process, learn from the winning bid.

3. Various ideas come up: Each competing bid views the FUDCon from a
different perspective giving us a wide variety of options to choose
from. The winning bidder can always request help from the competing
bidders to incorporate their ideas. *More*, *independent* ideas!

Everything has its two sides. Competition does too, so does
collaboration. The idea is to balance the two to host the best possible
FUDCon for the community. 

Please try and get this decided upon ASAP. I'll see you folks at the
meeting. 

Tuanta, since you are chairing the meeting. Can you please ensure that
this topic gets discussed and is given enough time? I'll add it to the
agenda.
-- 
Thanks, 
Warm regards,
Ankur: "FranciscoD"

Please only print if necessary. 

Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/

[Caius Chance]

On 28 September 2012 02:36, Buddhike Kurera <bckurera(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;wrote:

>  We can identified interested countries first, then we can discuss on
>  the bi-weekly meeting which is the best area to host the event. Yes if
>  we need more info to decide then we can ask the teams to have them on
>  a wiki page like who are the organizing team and so on. ....... Then
>  considering every aspect we can come to a conclusion avoiding all the
>  hard work and competition. I dont like going for a election and
>  voting. i think we need to discuss more and pick the best place
>  because we need to **spread the project with in the region** and that
>  is the only goal behind. Therefore without voting it is possible to
>  discuss with team and come to an mutual agreement through mutual
>  understanding and so that way we can select the next host with no
>  disappointing.
>  
I personally think the problem was happened on the candidate submission
schedule and how well we have been sticking to that. That is:


   1. Confirm the next location as early as possible.
   2. The team in confirmed location prepare on time.
   3. Reduce conflicts by transparency on selection process.


I do not agree about any pre-decision before voting, as this may make the
election and voting a meaningless event. As long as FAmSCo and Board have
the power of final decision (in respect to overall views of regional
communities), let's keep the choices in between 2 to 3 for assessment.
Forcing a unnatural mutual agreement may save us some time, may also
increase much risk.

After my attendance of FUDCon 2012 in KL, Malaysia; in terms of community
mature level of Fedora, IMO China (Hong Kong, Taiwan or greater China) are
not good enough for holding a FUDCon without help from foreign communities.
Especially when Beijing applied for FUDCon 2011, there was gbraad (he's
still there but looked much busy now) more capable to make things happen.

Regards,
kaio