Sponsoring event attendees

[Robyn Bergeron]

On 02/13/2012 01:54 PM, inode0 wrote:
> Sorry, this is long. Really, sorry this is long.
>
And with this mail, John, I forgive you for being long, really long, 
because I think I was just longer. :)

> 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.
FAD funding has generally been fairly ad-hoc; the budget for such things 
comes out of the Premier Fedora Events budget, and not the regional 
support budget, so it's typically been a "Go ask Max/Harish/Jared/Paul" 
type of thing.  The FAD page usually needs to have been made, with a 
budget laid out, etc.

(That said, we have seen a dramatic drop in the number of FADs 
sponsored; I don't think this is necessarily a sign of anything 
concrete, except perhaps (a) people have forgotten that this resource 
exists, or (b) we have fewer people working on new projects or solving 
problems that they are excited about, and can produce results 
face-to-face more rapidly. I suspect the latter may be the case, and is 
certainly troubling, but is a topic not really for this email.)
> 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.
As someone who has sat in countless FUDCon subsidy meetings, I 
understand your frustration level here; the meetings are incredibly 
tedious, tension-filled, and often the only participants are the ones 
that want to attend the FUDCon.  The same can be said of, at least in 
NA, FAmNA meetings where event sponsorship is requested; those wanting 
to go show up, and nobody else does.

WRT regional events, more specifically, I think we've been lax in the 
past with follow-up simply because we had a BOATLOAD OF CASH, and we 
didn't really have to worry about prioritizing; we simply made an 
attempt to ensure that the event had some value, and an owner, and some  
We are no longer in that situation.  The regional budget for FY12 was at 
least pushed to the absolute limit, and more likely exceeded the limit.  
Additionally, whereas in the past the regional budget was largely 
utilized by EMEA and NA, we now are starting to see rapid increases in 
community activity and requests from APAC and LATAM, which is a good 
thing, but will certainly require those in EMEA and NA to be more 
cognizant of impending events and requests in other regions.

> 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
As far as solutions go (or at least thinking towards them), I have a few 
angles here:

* Choosing who goes where
The Council is a reasonable idea for managing some of this, particularly 
as we encourage Non-ambassadors to consider requesting/utilizing 
Fedora's financial resources, as I know Christoph has mentioned having a 
more diverse group of folks available who have more knowledge of 
people's contributions in either projects or regions of the world.  My 
fear here is this - we have had an incredibly tough time just getting 
enough people to run for positions as it is, will this be any different?

One solution is to simply require a non-biased quorum of $some number of 
folks to be present to make the decisions.  An easier way to do this, at 
least WRT regional events, is to just do all event approvals once a 
month, a quarter, etc. and make sure that we are singing from the 
heavens that the meeting is happening, and that people should be present 
to make their cases, and that we need people who are not the proposed 
attendees to attend as well.  Of course, we have FAmSCo to handle 
requests as well, and many regions simply default to FAmSCo's 
decision-making process rather than proposing in a regional meeting.

Same goes for FUDCons - simply having a quorum of people who are not 
attending, and screaming from the sky that unless people show up, there 
will be no fudcon. Period.

However, I have some additional input here.  For the Tempe FUDCon, we 
made the case that we were having additional people from each region 
come to participate to learn how to run a FUDCon, and to bring that 
knowledge back to their respective regions.  And to that, I say, MISSION 
ACCOMPLISHED, we now have plenty of people with the knowledge. And yet, 
for Blacksburg, we had numerous people applying from out of the country, 
with requests like, "I'm coming to teach about X," or "I'm coming to 
learn about how to run a FUDCon," "I'm coming to engage with other 
people from the teams I work on," etc., without any very specific, 
concrete deliverables.  I think these requests (and grants) need to be 
cut down drastically, or we should reconsider the idea of just having 
one or two large fudcons a year, bring in as many people as we can, and 
push people to enable smaller one-day events for outreach in their regions.

* Budget Management
As I mentioned previously, the Regional budget does not go as far as it 
used to, and I believe we need to be *far* more careful with it going 
forward.  This mostly involves planning ahead.

In EMEA and NA, we have a fairly good handle on what events we 
traditionally go to.  Less so in APAC and LATAM, though there are 
certainly events like LCA and FISL where we traditionally send people.  
What I would love to see is a proactive approach to spending each year - 
where each region gets a handle on (a) What events they likely expect to 
attend, (b) How much they expect to spend at each one, including any 
sponsorship (and I don't believe we should shy away from .org or 
lower-level sponsorship of some events), (c) Swag planning, (d) Buffer 
for additional, non-listed events, or thoughts of allocating towards 
additional events that we haven't attended in the past, (e) Other stuff 
- shipping, media, etc.

At some point, we'll get a general idea of what we plan on spending.  
There is also additional money that FAMSCO has laid out for things like 
release parties, etc. and we've traditionally said "if it's under $X 
amount, just do it," and it may be time to at least take a look and see 
how much we have spent in that area.

I would like to see FAmSCo take the initiative, as we start launching 
into the next fiscal year, to reach out to each region and ask them to 
compile these numbers, and come back and say, this is what we're 
expecting to spend.  I agree that everyone is always acting in Fedora's 
best interests, but I think it would add an additional level of at least 
comfort with what we're all spending, or planning to spend.

Additionally: I would like to see a return to accountability here.  That 
means: Having complete event proposals, submitted more than 3 days 
before the event.  Ensuring that people understand that, unless there 
are exceptions, having a Red Hat employee or community card holder pay 
for your hotel room does not mean they will be picking up breakfast, 
lunch, dinner, and 6 cocktails. Seeing a final tally on costs for events 
IN THE EVENT PAGE ITSELF, not loosely hanging on another budget page. 
People who don't follow up with event reports, blogs, etc. as requested, 
or finalize the event page with that material post-event, shouldn't be 
considered in the future, or should at least be put on the "don't screw 
it up again" list.

And I don't know what the shape of Famsco reporting is right now; 
perhaps we need to get back to a focus on it, and if famsco isn't 
willing to do it, get a group together who is willing to put in the 
effort.  But that's been a major piece of the accountability, and 
additionally, an important piece that Max, or Harish, or the FPL can 
show to Red Hat and say, "Here's the list of where your money went, and 
how it was used, and why continuing to invest here is important."

Again, being ahead of the game here is key: We've seen, at least in 
FAmNA, far too many event requests come in at the last second, when 
people aren't aware that they are on the agenda, don't know to show up 
to contribute feedback, and it is such an emergency that we rubberstamp 
it in the name of not blocking people from doing things in Fedora, and 
while I'm all for not blocking people from doing things, I think that 
there should be some responsibility on the part of the event owner to 
get it submitted in a timely fashion. Period.

In short: Well, I suppose a specific, less wordy proposal for at least 
working towards a solution might be in order.  I'm happy to take a cut 
at it, and while I don't think it's something the Board necessarily 
needs to approve or disapprove, I'm happy to work towards it, assuming 
other people also think there are problems in this area.

-Robyn

> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board