Sponsoring event attendees

Mon Feb 13 21:50:29 UTC 2012

Drawing on experience from other areas of my background, I would say
if a project member is scheduled to deliver a presentation, teaching a
class, fulfilling a specific duty, like camera work, etc

Then sponsoring an individual needing some assistance to attend an
event so they can fulfill their obligations is useful to fedora and
the community.  Now, granted I am not saying all requests for
assistance must meet the criteria above, but, isn't that why the
videos are posted to youtube?

Businesses try to reduce travel overhead by using video conferencing
and posting video sessions.  Maria and her team are working on similar
technology that will be useful in making more of that available,
besides youtube.

So, I feel the funds for travel assistance should be used for actual
specific fedora business needs.  If individuals who are challenged
cannot arrange travel to a fedora event, then perhaps reaching out to
the group might help, voluntary contributions, donations, etc

Sharing rides, sharing travel points from airline or hotel programs.
There are alternative methods, we have to be creative and think
outside the box.  I don't think a written policy with conditions can
be drafted to cover every situation, so common sense, the global
picture, fedora objectives, individual status all need to be factored
in when evaluating travel requests.

I apologize if any of that seems negative or offensive, just trying to
take a sterile clinical approach.  :-)

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, this is long. Really, sorry this is long.
>
> For the past couple of years Fedora has had a policy governing this
> developed by Paul, Max, and others. At times the process has worked
> very well and at other times the process seems rather dysfunctional
> and arbitrary. Many of those involved in trying to implement this
> policy have at times been very pleased and at other times
> uncomfortable about its execution in practice. I suppose that isn't
> all that surprising but as some of us look back at the policy after a
> bit of a break-in period we are looking for ways to improve things and
> I'd like to ask for any comments or suggestions that the Board might
> have to that end.
>
> For reference here is the full policy as developed back in 2010.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees
>
> It is rather long and I'd like to include here the executive summary
> of the point of the policy from its beginning.
>
> *****
> This document explains the process for obtaining sponsorship for event
> attendance. We use this model for FUDCons, FADs, and other events
> where the Fedora Project provides partial or total travel subsidies.
> Almost everything on this page can be summarized as follows:
>
>    * In every case where Fedora Project funds will pay for events,
> there is a responsible party -- a person or group -- who will handle
> any requests for travel subsidies.
>    * That party will consider requests based on a number of criteria,
> including relevance to the event, how critical that request is, the
> specific deliverables it will enable, the proximity of the traveler,
> and the amount of the request.
>    * Decisions are made in an open, transparent process that
> complements the rest of Fedora's processes.
> *****
>
> While there have been various issues with the formality of requests
> and the tracking of results both of those can be improved by the
> concerted effort of the "responsible parties" who approve subsidies.
> Most of the difficulty that I see and that has been expressed to me by
> others revolves around those responsible parties. The section of the
> policy that defines them is here
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees#Who_decides_sponsorships
>
> I've received feedback and have personal experience with feeling we
> haven't quite lived up to the blurb at the end of this section.
>
> ***
> Openness and transparency
> Decisions on sponsorships, regardless of who makes them, are made in
> an open and transparent manner. All Fedora contributors should feel
> comfortable with the stewardship of event funding.
> ***
>
> I believe these decisions are made in open and transparent ways, but I
> also know that all Fedora contributors are not always comfortable with
> the results and I'd like to improve that. More troubling to me is that
> not all the people involved directly in the decision making process
> are comfortable with the results.
>
> I haven't been involved in FAD funding decisions so setting those
> aside I can speak to the process used for FUDCons and other events.
>
> For FUDCons there has been a concerted effort to follow this process
> and that much has worked well. Where it seems to break down at times
> is in the composition of the "responsible party." That has been a
> moving target over time and probably over geographic region. CommArch
> originally made these decisions as I understand it, then CommArch
> working more in public with the FPL and the team organizing the
> FUDCon, then more the FPL with the organizing team, then more the FPL
> with the organizing team and whoever (usually very interested parties)
> else shows up and starts voting.
>
> For other events in some places funding requests have gone through
> FAmSCo. In North America they have normally been approved by FAmNA
> directly or delegated to an event's owner. Often this has worked well,
> although delegating a travel budget to an event owner is usually
> putting the cart in front of the horse when there isn't a clearly
> defined need for travel subsidies. I don't think we've done as good of
> a job as the FUDCon planners at implementing the other parts of the
> process (requests, reports, etc.) as we could and often regional
> groups of ambassadors may not be familiar enough with the overall
> budget to know where things stand so there is at times the appearance
> of a default approve policy.
>
> So we will continue to do our best to improve our execution of this
> policy over time at all levels. The one issue that keeps coming up in
> all of these situations though is some contributors are not
> comfortable with the composition of the "responsible parties." Are
> there ways you can imagine where perceptions of fairness or at least
> disinterestedness could be improved by some means? Possibly some more
> formal notion of who the responsible parties are or how they are
> constituted? Perhaps a Fedora Council?
>
> Every time I begin thinking about this I keep banging my head on the
> fact that the closer the decision is made to the event the more some
> see the decisions as self-interested and sometimes showing favoritism
> and the more removed it is made from the event the less the decision
> maker understands about the people and needs of the particular event.
> Perhaps there isn't any great solution and we will all just have to
> continue to do our best. After two years of trying I thought this
> might be a good time to look for ways to improve the process for the
> new year.
>
> I do also want to say that in my personal experience I do believe that
> everyone involved in making these decisions does his/her best to make
> the right decision for Fedora. I would just also like to see fewer
> people questioning that in the end.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board