#58: Regional allocation for FY17 budget
Reporter: mattdm | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: major
Component: General | Resolution:
Comment (by mattdm):
Replying to [comment:9 cwickert]:
If we do that–or at least make sure, LATAM does not get less than
spent last year- I'm +1 for the regional allocation. I suggest we
this part done and move on in order to not delay the process further.
'''Everybody ok with that?'''
Sounds fair, but that was not my question. Do we want a quarterly
''at the beginning'' or not? If so, this initial split takes
probably more than 2-4 weeks you estimated.
Ah, yes. I think we do want the split at the beginning, but I don't really
_specifically_ care about it from the point of view of overall allocation.
And, yeah, 2-4 weeks seems reasonable, especially this time around. The
various plans _do_ have quarterly splits already, but they will need to be
adjusted and I can see that taking some time. Although I guess also,
looking at the calendar, that will basically coincide with Q1 being
Last but not least I still think we should not only rebalance from
regions but also give them the chance to rebalance quarters. This is the
regional support budget and it is called 'regional' for a reason.
Okay, fair enough. I do hope that regions with under-spending and no
immediate plans consider overall Fedora needs, too, though.
Ok, "no other _meaningful_ use" then. :-) The question is:
Who is to
decide what is good use and what is not? Who is to judge if something in
region A is more useful for Fedora as a whole than else in region B? I
think people in the regions know best what is good for them.
Over the past years, FAmSCo has been working hard to delegate
down to the regions. Ultimately, we want an open project
with a flat hierarchy. We want to motivate people to be responsible for
their regions. Therefor I'm very concerned about the centralist tendencies
I see in the council and the budget.next process.
I see the concern. But, we *do* need to spend money globally, and on
things which may be regional but which aren't necessarily ambassador-
focused (for example translation events). The FY14 budget that we've been
continuing from did not allocate anything for FADs, when in retrospect it
probably should have; that puts us in a hard spot for shifting funding
back to FADs _now_.
We ultimately ''are'' responsible for deciding if money has more useful
for Fedora as a whole in region A or region B. We need evidence that what
we're doing is working, whether decentralized or not. Decentralized has a
natural tendency to go in all sorts of different directions, which can be
powerful, but it can also be inefficient — and can be hard to put together
again into a coherent story. Right now, we don't have a way to show where
the money went, why, and what we got out of it. I think Remy's plan (with
the three different roles in each region) will help — and help keep things
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/58#comment:10>
Fedora Council Public Tickets