On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:14:03PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Regarding the budget: For me, fF/hDI scenario sounds best, but
speaking I'm not happy with it either. It's not that I don't like the
scenario, but the overall process. It's hard to vote on abstract
scenarios without knowing what they actually mean for the people. We
want to support some outreachy stuff, but do we actually have ideas
how to spend 5k? What events do we attend? Who will attend these
This actually is a specific line item. One Outreachy intern costs 5k.
Ultimately, we want Fedora to be a flat hierarchy. Decisions-making
should happen bottom-up and on the lowest possible level. Scenarios on
the other hand seem very top-down.
I want people doing work to be empowered, yes. However, we also need
spending to be focused on best impact, and it's hard to do that without
bringing the low-level decision-making together — which somewhat
inevitably makes it higher-level.
FAmSCo has been working hard to delegate as much responsibility down
to the regions. This process has been working well and inspired people
to participate. Therefor I suggest we first look at what they request,
make some adjustments and once we know how much we need for regional
support, we know how much is left for FADs and Outreachy.
I agree that for the regional activities, we want responsibility at the
regional level. That's why I'd like to move the regional planning FAD
line items — and possibly FUDCons as well — to the regional budgets.
But your suggestion seems to have the basic assumption that regional
support is the most important spending. I don't think that's
necessarily true. There are things we can do globally or centrally
which are also worth funding and should't necessarily be determined by
where contributors happen to live.
Fedora Project Leader