[Ambassadors] Meeting minutes FAmSCo 2010-2-19
inode0 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 20 06:37:39 UTC 2011
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Pierros Papadeas <ppapadeas at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello to all!
> Today FAmSCo had its weekly meeting.
> Updated agenda can be found here  and meeting minutes here 
> 13:33:14 <liknus> One thing I would like to rise is this :
> 13:33:51 <liknus> Recently there has been some discussion on the possible broaden the
> scope of FAmSCo (on budget handling)
> 13:34:17 <liknus> So you all remember the thread on the Amb ml
> 13:34:24 <liknus> some of us replied also
> 13:34:38 <liknus> I believe that we can have a discussion within FAmSCo ml
> 13:34:51 <liknus> and possibly take some stance on that during a meeting
> 13:34:53 <liknus> *but*
> 13:35:01 <lcafiero> right. I think it's OK for them to broaden the scope of FAmSCo so we're
> handling other financial requests
> 13:35:01 <yn1v> liknus, I was concern with the thread and wanted to talk about on the open
> floor part
> 13:35:12 <lcafiero> OK
> 13:35:20 <liknus> we cannot reach a decision without a solid proposal from someone
> 13:35:30 <igorps> It is a good discussion, but somehow we also need opinion from the
> Board members
Why? What does the Board have to do with the budget?
> 13:35:38 <liknus> obviously we can choose to accept or not a role (or even take part in
> forming it)
> 13:36:03 <liknus> but right now we do *not* have a proposal officially made (board, some
> SCo, a person etc)
I made something of a proposal as a community member, David Nalley
previously made a proposal as well.
Even though a proposal from FAmSCo will not agree with my proposal I
welcome your initiative to make a more formal statement of your
willingness to accept an expanded role if that is what you want to do.
Getting options on the table will lead to this getting resolved sooner
one way or another and until it is resolved we can't all get behind
whatever decision we end up with to move ahead constructively.
> 13:36:16 <liknus> you people understand what I mean?
> 13:36:21 <yn1v> yes
> 13:36:44 <lcafiero> yes.
> 13:36:47 <yn1v> we are at brainstorming stage with any solid course
> 13:36:57 <gbraad-china> no proposal, just notes
> 13:37:02 <yn1v> excatly
> 13:37:06 <igorps> I agree with lcafiero on broadening the scope of FAmSCo
> 13:37:24 <liknus> So we can issue a general approach like "We are OK to take more
> responsibility with budget handling" but nothing more specific
> 13:37:30 <gbraad-china> me too, as mentioned earlier when it comes to fedoracommunity
> 13:37:36 <liknus> I guess we all agree with that
> 13:37:56 <gbraad-china> but budget handling foremost
> 13:38:00 <lcafiero> I think we can go further than that
> 13:38:01 <yn1v> inode0 made a goord point, why people submit request to a body athat they
> can not vote or be elected.
> 13:38:43 <yn1v> that will be an touchy issue.
> 13:38:46 <liknus> yn1v, what is the alternative ? To elect a new body? (besides FAmSCo is
> the body that is elected by most members in Fedora)
I guess you did not read the proposal I made that began this discussion.
> 13:39:05 <liknus> btw :
> 13:39:16 <lcafiero> I disagree, yn1v -- I think that if the process is that you go to X to get
> funding, you go to X to get funding
> 13:39:22 <yn1v> I think in the future, yes... but it is up to de board
Again why is any of this up to the board? The board has nothing to do with this.
> 13:39:29 <lcafiero> Whether or not you're a part of that group.
> 13:39:47 <liknus> right now for broader budget handling , board makes the call
No, the board doesn't make the call.
> 13:39:57 <liknus> so why we actually need to change that?
> 13:39:58 <lcafiero> If that's the process set up and approved by the community, then that's
> what you do.
> 13:39:59 <yn1v> I am happy showing that we can accomodate everyones needs
> 13:40:06 <lcafiero> Agreed
> 13:40:10 <lcafiero> And we can.
> 13:40:16 <liknus> for sure
> 13:40:30 <igorps> liknus: maybe people are not just aware of board tasks
If the board is making budget decisions people certainly are not aware of it.
> 13:40:32 <gbraad-china> agree with lcafiero
> 13:40:33 <lcafiero> I think John Rose is throwing up unnecessary roadblocks, IMO
Personally insulting me is not helpful to anything Larry. I gave the
reasons I brought this up in my email and how one proposal for how to
transfer budget work from the Red Hat Community Architecture team to
the Fedora Project can be viewed as a roadblock boggles my mind.
> 13:40:46 <liknus> lcafiero, +1 on that
> 13:41:14 <liknus> besides... we already have an elected body to handle wide budget issues..
> the board
> 13:41:24 <igorps> liknus: exactly
We do not elect the board to handle budget issues.
> 13:41:28 <lcafiero> Also, it may require FAmSCo somewhere along the line to be changed to
> a steering committee for Ambassadors AND financial requests.
> 13:41:38 <liknus> and for specific things (up to certain amount) we (FAmSCo) can handle it
> 13:41:40 <lcafiero> How that translates into an acronym will be tricky :-)
> 13:41:48 <igorps> I don't see why a new body will address this issue
> 13:41:50 <liknus> lcafiero, :P
> 13:42:03 <lcafiero> I don't think a new body is necessary.
> 13:42:21 <lcafiero> and I don't think inode0 is asking for one.
> 13:42:29 <gbraad-china> lcafiero Community Resource and Budget Handling Committee
> 13:42:44 <gbraad-china> :-P
> 13:43:00 <lcafiero> Heh.
> 13:43:07 <igorps> gbraad-china: might do the trick ;)
> 13:43:20 <gbraad-china> I do believe we are responsible for these tasks.
> 13:43:44 <gbraad-china> we provide the tools and resources to the Ambassadors (and the
> Community as a whole) to do their job.
> 13:44:12 <lcafiero> We can deal with that later -- my opinion is that FAmSCo can handle the
> duties without a name change; it might require a change in the description and duties we
> currently have, obvilusly
> 13:44:14 <gbraad-china> marketeers or disucssions on how to get other stuff done... (you know
> what I mean)
> 13:44:16 <lcafiero> obviously
> 13:44:24 * lcafiero can't type so early.
> 13:44:33 * gbraad-china had too much barley
> 13:44:33 <liknus> people lets not be chaotic... we do not feel like having a new body (as
> FAmSCo) and also we do not have a concrete proposal... So IMHO no need to decide on sth
> 13:45:05 <gbraad-china> liknus, what I understand is: we discuss and explore the boundaries
> 13:45:10 <liknus> and on extension to that lcafiero is right
> 13:45:27 <gbraad-china> but need to take this to off meeting perhaps
> 13:45:32 <liknus> gbraad-china, thats why I think that lcafiero stated that correctly
> 13:45:39 <lcafiero> Well, I don't really understand this: If people are told "Go here," for
> funding, why wouldn't they go? I would, even if I wasn't an ambassador.
> 13:45:54 <liknus> lcafiero, nicely said
> 13:46:01 <lcafiero> To say, "I can't go to FAmSCo for funding -- I'm not an ambassador" is
> not a good argument if that's the process.
I don't really disagree with you on this, but the reality is that
other people are offended by it and get quite animated about it. There
was a lively discussion about this at the tail end of one of the board
sessions at FUDCon in Tempe which brought it back into my thinking now
after I dismissed it out of hand at FADNA last year.
However FAmSCo wants to proceed I just ask that you be sensitive to
the way non-ambassadors view (rightly or wrongly) FAmSCo and the
ambassadors group because as Neville said this will be touchy for some
while it will be of no concern to others.
More information about the ambassadors