On Mon, Jan 9, 2017, at 01:26 PM, Zamir SUN wrote:
On 01/09/2017 07:07 PM, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
> Warning: This email is long. I don't know how to avoid that. I
> debated making this a wiki, but I think we need more discussion that
> just editing. There is no tl;dr. If you want a tl;dr perhaps you
> should wait a while and participate near the end of the conversation.
> Warning: The opening text is the same for both Part I and Part II.
> During 2016 I had the privilege of helping to plan and execute Flock
> and attended both FUDCon LATAM (Puno) and FUDCon APAC (Phnom Penh).
> Talking to people has led to me to believe that these events may not be
> meeting all of our goals. Specifically we are spending a lot of time
> and money on them and may not be getting our full value. I also heard
> a lot of comments about how the events are not equal from people who
> thought they should be and not well distributed across the world from
> people who thought they should be. This led me to believe that there
> is a lot of confusion about why we do these events and what we want out
> of them.
> In the spirit of it is easier to edit than to create, I am going to
> propose some ideas. My goal is less to present this as a polished
> proposal ready for a vote and more to allow us to have a discussion
> around the finer points of the events strategy. It would be nice to see
> this discussion come to an end by the end of March so that it can have
> impact this year. The planning for Flock will begin soon (see my
> another of my emails today) but the FUDCon processes are not heavily
> started, as far as I can tell.
> Additionally, while history is important, I think it is equally
> important that we consider what we want to accomplish today and in the
> next few years, not just what we tried to accomplish in the past.
> Therefore, I've written this without too much reference to what is being
> changed and instead as an idea of what we should be doing. I look
> forward to folks bringing forward suggestions for continuing activities
> from the past or better incorporating lessons learned that I may have
> I look forward to your feedback and input.
> # FUDCon
> As mentioned above, I attended both FUDCons in 2016. These are the only
> two FUDCons that I have ever attended. I was told by attendees at both
> events that while every event is different, these two were fairly
> typical in the areas I was concerned with.
> FUDCons have been described to me as being for Fedora Users and
> Developers (hence the name). What is never clear from the people I've
> talked to is what kind of users they think are targeted and whether the
> developers are "developers who use Fedora" or "people who develop
> (contribute to) Fedora." Both events this year were held in partnership
> with Universities. Both had large attendances on the first day,
> typically when students were incentivized to show up by their faculty
> and poor attendance on the non-incentive days. It was unclear that many
> people took a lot away from the conference or that there would be
> significant follow up activity. These comments are not to single out
> the organizers for these FUDCons. They all worked very hard and pulled
> off very good events. I just didn't get a feeling that the events had a
> lot of impact and changed much in the short or long term.
> I believe that for our investment of time, energy, and money in FUDCons
> to be successful, the goals of these events must be clarified.
> ## Structure
> I believe we need to remove some of the restrictions we place on these
> events, chiefly on where and how often they can be held. Therefore, I
> believe we should simply state that FUDCons can be held anywhere in the
> world and any number of times that is appropriate. This means that we
> can have FUDCons in places like EMEA and NA (which helps to relieve
> pressure on Flock).
IIRC, formerly we have FUDCons all over the four region. Sometime around
2014 FUDCon NA and FUDCon EMEA switched to FLOCK while FUDCon APAC and
FUDCon LATAM remain still. So if you really mean add FUDCon back to EMEA
and NA, that is clearly an additional of event. With the current budget
status, I wonder if it will make some current events hard.
If we have smaller events with less travel we can do more with the same
money. Also, if we show impact we may be able to attract additional
budget or sponsorship.
> Additionally, while FUDCons are inherently regional events, I
> that the Fedora Council should nominally "own" them. This means that
> the budget allocation should work like most FADs and be approved by the
> budget. I don't think this is a change from current practice.
> While I hope that Ambassadors will take the lead in organizing and
> running these events, I believe that any contributor should be able to
> make a proposal.
> Finally, I believe these events do not need to be standalone. I think
> they can have greater impact when collocated with other conferences or
> run as "+1 days" to other events. While this shouldn't be a
> requirement, I think it is a good practice to encourage.
In my experience in China, running events one after another together
(let's say, event A is Feb 1st to Feb 2nd, then event B is Feb 3rd )
usually makes the audiences feeling tired, also the
organizers/volunteers if they are involving in both. So n+1 day way may
not work well.
> Another challenge for FUDCons that we should remove is to make it easier
> to organize them. Once a FUDCon is approved, we need to ensure that we
> have enough people and resources engaged to make the event a success.
> In the case of Flock we see several core organizers working with the
> local organizer to make things happen. FUDCons should be able to rely
> on more support from the FCAIC and possibly others to help with
> organizational details. We should also see FUDCons being proposed with
> robust organizing committees that are appropriate to the size of the
> ## Goals
> It is hard to write a single set of goals for a varied set of events.
> Instead, I think that we should consider these in a way that I hope is
> similar to how the Ambassadors consider events they attend.
> Specifically, I believe that we should be asking the following
> * Who specifically is this event targeting and why? How does this group
> align with the target audiences for Fedora?
> * What are the specific desired outcomes of this event? How can we see
> evidence of achieving these goals? Evidence doesn't need to be
> quantitative, it can be qualitative, but you need to have thought
> through how you know you were a success.
> * Why should we hold a FUDCon in this specific city?
> * How will you ensure you attract the right audience and that they are
> engaged? What preparatory activities need to happen? How will those
> happen? What follow up activities are needed? How will those happen?
> * If this FUDCon is collocated, why is this conference or event the
> right one to collocate with? If this FUDCon is not collocated, why is
> an independent event better?
> ## Programming
> Programming for FUDCons is extremely important. In 2016 one event was
> run as a Bar Camp and the other was run as a programmed event at a Bar
> Camp. While Bar Camp voting should result in the conference that people
> want to attend, that also means that the speakers need to be talking
> about topics that matter to the audience. In the case of a programmed
> event, this is also critical.
> Therefore programming at FUDCons should be based on the goals and target
> audience, not just based on which Fedora contributors want to attend.
> Ideally the proposal should include the kinds of topics that will be
> presented and even a provisional list of speakers who will be
> ## Funded Attendance and Costs
> To increase the number of activities, we should cleanly divorce FUDCons
> from Regional FADs. FUDCons are necessarily a reason to fly in
> contributors from all over a region or the world. Let's keep them
> locally focused. Depending on the goals and target audience all of the
> speakers do not even need to be Fedora contributors. For example, a
> non-Fedora contributor speaking about Eclipse (on Fedora) at a developer
> focused FUDCon may make a lot of sense.
> Therefore I believe that budgets should trend toward the smaller side
> with an emphasis on impact being directly related to budget size. To
> give some (highly contrived) examples, a +1 day event for FOSDEM may
> have a large budget because the event needs good publicity to draw the
> huge attendance opportunity from those attending FOSDEM. A +1 day event
> for DevConf.cz may have a small budget because we have a friendly
> environment for advertising and a ton of local contributors to help with
> programming. A +1 day event for FISL may need a medium size budget
> because of the need to fly in Spanish speaking presenters for some
> sessions. (These are just examples, don't read into them.)
I think this really differs case by case. For some areas like Beijing of
China, venue are costly, usually a big main hall costs at least USD 1000
per day. For FUDCon APAC 2014 (Beijing) we luckily find some complex
workaround to reduce the costs of venue. And by holding together with
GNOME in parallel the venue costs is shared, which results in a better
condition. If we make it +1 day style, we may not afford the main hall
in this specific case.
This is where the knowledge of what works in a region should be applied.
If +1 days are not good for China, then we shouldn't force them to be
done in China. That doesn't mean we should force other regions not to
do them though if they work there. This also means that we need to
think about China as China and not as the "representation of all things
APAC solely because we decided the one and only event will be held