[Ambassadors] Next FUDCon in APAC - Change of Process?

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 03:25 PM, Buddhike Kurera wrote:
> The current process is: Calling for bids, regional FAms make comments
> on teams, FAmSCo votes and elects a team, that may be different than
> what regional FAm agreed,

Why would FAmSCo go against the opinion of the regional leadership?

> But I cannot understand preparing best with lot of hard work and then
> at the last moment saying "Your team is rejected"

I think you don't understand the current process.

Teams are supposed to submit a bid before review and decision. They are 
not expected to have everything done.

The latter would be a huge waste indeed, the former is not lost as very 
few things would need redoing for a subsequent bid the next year.

A bid is the **description** of the local city, expected prices, ease of 
travel to and from, etc...

It does not imply having reserved the location, paid for the equipment, 
etc...

Most of the work happens **after** having been selected.

> If we need to spread the project in some
> specific country or territory we can use the FUDCon as the starting
> point, in that case even though the local team is no that good enough
> we can support them and make the FUDCon success, in a bidding process
> is it realistic?

I don't see why that would not already be possible with the current process.

> We need to **pick the best place that
> need more attention and development**. It should be a strategical
> decision rather than focusing on the best team with best activeness.

Well, there actually needs to be a local active team.

I mean, it would be awesome to have a FUDCon in Hong Kong for example. 
That would be a really great opportunity to grow the local community, 
it's easy and cheap to fly here from all over Asia, it's a door to China,...

But there's no local team, so you may decide that Hong Kong is the most 
strategic place to have a FUDCon next year, it still won't happen. I'm 
not organizing a FUDCon alone.

All in all, you seem to be confused about the current process.

First, for some reason you seem to think that there is a lot of work 
which goes to waste if a team is not selected. That's not true, the work 
really happens after having been selected.

Secondly, you seem to think that the current decision process takes only 
into account one criteria (the strength of the local community 
organizing it), and you seem to want to replace it by only another one 
(the strategic importance of the location).

I think both are important, and can be carefully taken into 
consideration when deciding, along with other important criteria 
(affordability, geopolitical conditions, ...).

And reading the wiki pages, it seems to me that the current process 
already allows for taking all these criteria into account.

Now it might not be how it happens in practice, but then it is an 
implementation problem, not one with the documented process.


-- 
Mathieu