[Ambassadors] Meeting minutes FAmSCo 2010-2-19

inode0 inode0 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 20 16:23:57 UTC 2011

2011/2/20 Larry Cafiero <larry.cafiero at gmail.com>:
> As a preface, this discussion took place during the open floor and no
> decisions were made on the issue. I cannot speak for the rest of FAmSCo, but
> I think we're still digesting and distilling the proposal, and subsequent
> discussion, into some sort of action.
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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?
> I don't think the board has anything to do with budget, and while I don't
> want to speak for Igor, I believe the "opinion" in question is whether we
> need some sort of authority from the Board to approve a decision by FAmSCo
> to expand FAmSCo's scope to include non-ambassador funding -- if that's what
> we choose to pursue (and again, this discussion took place during Open
> Floor, at which time we were just getting a sense of how we, as a group,
> wanted to proceed). The Board just might want to have is some say in making
> an approval on this decision because, unless you can point it out, I can't
> find any precedent or authority that FAmSCo can make the decision to give
> itself this power on its own. If we are endowed with the power to make this
> kind of financial decision unilaterally, then I think that can be arranged.
> And I think FAmSCo should authorize the purchase of a Lear jet for every
> member, while we're at it, if we're allowed to make such decisions on our
> own. Obviously you can see where the Board might have a problem with that.

FAmSCo gets its authority over the funding it now has authority over
from the source of that funding, the Red Hat Community Architecture
team. Asking a body that has no authority over the budget to give
FAmSCo authority over another part of the budget that the body has no
authority over really makes no sense to me.

I agree FAmSCo can't just assert it now has authority over the rest of
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.
> I think David's proposal was far more clear, and it's somewhat unfortunate
> that David's wasn't acted upon by the last FAmSCo group. I'd be interested
> to know in more detail why it didn't fly and what hang-ups we can avoid
> going forward.
>> 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.
>> > 13:38:46 <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.
> I think he did. I think we all did -- all 742 words. To be honest, I thought
> it was very hard to follow, and English is my first language. In addition, I
> thought it was contradictory in places, which I find to be hurdles moreso
> than roadblocks (see below).

I think it was pretty clear that it suggested a non-elected body.

>> > 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.
> Again, I don't want to speak for Igor, but what I think is in question here,
> or at least how I took this, is that the "tasks" of the board in question,
> again, is having the authority to check off on expanding the scope of FAmSCo
> to allow it to fund non-ambassador projects.
>> > 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.
> "Roadblocks" was not the right word here. "Hurdles" was probably a better
> choice, but at 6 a.m. on Saturday morning, I am not at my most eloquent.
> Here's an example of what I consider a hurdle: In your original posting, you
> say this:
> "After much discussion with new and old friends from around the world
> at FUDCon Tempe I've concluded that FAmSCo probably isn't going to be
> the best place for non-ambassador budget decisions to happen as we
> expand our efforts at increasing funding of various new events (FADs
> with explicit work product to be achieved for example) as well as
> non-event funding of efforts as they might arise."
> Fine. To me that says FAmSCo is not the place for non-ambassador funding
> decisions to happen. But later on in the same original post, you say this:
> "There was a subtle suggestion at FADNA last year that we consider a
> new organization. I was resistant to this, I thought FAmSCo has stuff
> in place and has experience dealing with budgets, etc. Now after
> talking to more people, especially non-ambassadors, I think I was
> wrong to be resistant. Now I think that if we can modify our structure
> a bit to encourage more engagement from more contributors and have
> those contributors be comfortable asking for funds we should do it."
> So which is it? Is FAmSCo NOT "going to be the best place for non-ambassador
> budget decisions to happen," or "if we can modify our structure a bit to
> encourage more engagement from more contributors and have those contributors
> be comfortable asking for funds we should do it"?

At FADNA I agreed with the position that appears to be the current
position of FAmSCo, to expand FAmSCo's authority over a larger slice
of the budget. I no longer think that is the best way to go forward
given the reaction to it I've received from non-ambassadors.

I don't want to modify the structure of FAmSCo or the ambassadors.
They keep doing what they are doing. I suggested modifying the
structure of budget allocation from the Red Hat Community Architecture
team to include non-ambassadors both as beneficiaries of that budget
(which they have been consistently working toward) and as engaged
participants in the decision making process regarding its future

> I can play semantics all day, if necessary, but I'd prefer to take action to
> get this done.
> Also, I'm sorry if you feel insulted, however that's my opinion and I stand
> by it.
>> > 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.
> I find this hard to believe. If the process is: Go HERE for funding, and if
> someone is "offended" by having to go HERE to get funding for a project -- a
> reasonable following of what would probably (and hopefully) be a simple
> process -- then a.) maybe it's not important enough to him or her to get the
> funding, and/or b.) if he or she is that "offended" or "animated" by having
> to go through FAmSCo to get funding, is this the kind of person that Fedora
> wants representing it in what would potentially be a sponsored and public
> venue?

People come from all over the place, they have different life
histories and view the "politcial" governance structure of Fedora
quite differently based on their own view of things generally. Some
people do view FAmSCo as a body elected by ambassadors to represent
ambassadors. We would like everyone to view FAmSCo as representing
every contributor, but whether you find it hard to believe or not that
isn't going to happen with only 700 ambassadors electing FAmSCo.

On the plus side in my view of having FAmSCo do it is that FAmSCo has
experience and procedures already in place to do it, so it is
expedient. On the downside there are contributors who I think bring
great value to our community who won't accept that as legitimate. And
while that may seem unreasonable we do need to live in the real world.

On the plus side of looking at a different body to do it I see that we
are directly enabling the majority of the community to steer its own
ship. To feel in control of its own operations in the same way I feel
ambassadors have felt for years. On the downside there is additional
organization required, although that additional work isn't required of
ambassadors or of FAmSCo. It is required of those who want to be
engaged fully in the budget process concerning their areas of the
project. Will they actually stand up to do it if given the
opportunity? I don't know, I would like to see them given the chance.

>> 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.
> So noted.


More information about the ambassadors mailing list