[FAmSCo] change of FAD status

Robyn Bergeron rbergero at redhat.com
Tue Dec 18 15:26:02 UTC 2012


On 12/18/2012 07:16 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> Hi all,
> this is something we discussed at EMEA FAD and I'd like to start the
> discussion in FAmSCo, too.
> Currently, Fedora Activity Days have a status of premium events and are
> treated the same way FUDCons are. In my opinion, it's mainly for
> historical reasons and we might want to consider changing it. Here are
> some reasons:
>
> * FADs are not premium events. IMHO premium events are big and important
> events that need special attention in terms of planning, budgeting,
> reimbursement etc. such as FUDCons, FOSDEM, LinuxCon. FADs are small,
> (mostly) Fedora-only events where a small group of contributors get
> together to work on something. This doesn't sound like a premium event
> to me.
>
> * We've created a new system to approve expenses with clear
> responsibilities and I think it's been working well so far.
> Unfortunately, because FADs are premium events they are excluded from
> this system. And as EMEA FAD showed, it doesn't work very well. There is
> no documented process to ask for a FAD budget (which is not the problem
> I'm trying to solve now, we can simply create it), people ask for
> approvals in the FAmSCo trac, but FAmSCo is not the one who has the
> right to make the decision. Requests are left unapproved. For example,
> it's been a week since I returned from EMEA FAD and my request for
> travel subsidy has not even been approved yet! Well, I can nag people
> around (I certainly will at some point), but it's not how things should
> work.
>
> Which leads me to two potential solutions:
>
> 1. FADs will be treated differently from other events, but all requests
> related to FADs will be approved by FAmSCo. Then all tickets in FAmSCo
> trac will again belong to FAmSCo. And I also think we recently got rid
> of many requests and have a good response time in approving things.
>
> 2. FADs will be treated like any other event. So all expenses under
> $2000 related to FAmSCo will be handled by regions and people would
> follow standard processes. This solution brings a few questions we'd
> have to answer:
> How much are FADs tied to regions? EMEA FAD certainly is, but what about
> say Security SIG FAD? Should the region have the right to approve it
> just because it happens to take place in that region?
> How is it going to be reflected in regional budgets? Because if regions
> should approve FADs, it should come from their budgets.
>
> Please think about it and come with your opinion. This is an area that
> will definitely need some changes.
So historically the "have a FAD" process was basically... "Ask Max."  
Because the budget for FADs is the same bucket of money as FUDCons - 
completely different from the "regional spending pot."

This gave the budget owner a bit of discretion to stretch/shrink a 
budget for an event depending on circumstances, or to approve things 
regardless of region.  And to be able to say yes or no depending on if 
there's an actual plan, etc.

WRT region: It should be in the place where it's going to be most cost 
effective. Which is why (IMO) having it in a regional budget makes 
little sense - it basically detracts from their "fad budget" simply 
because of location. And also encourages people to spend uncessarily at 
other FADs by importing people because "the other region is out of money."

Pretty much every situation is special.

FADs were never said to be "Premium Events."  It is a *Premier* event, 
and by that the meaning has always been, "A Fedora-headlined, 
Fedora-centric event." Again, hence the budget coming out of that shared 
bucket with FUDCons.

As such - I'd prefer to see the budget for this continue to be in the 
hands of the budget owner, and clarify the process around that, whether 
it's just a FAD request trac, or whatever - I'm not laying down the law 
and saying that's the decision, but IMO - if there is one person 
responsible for making sure an event is up to par and things are getting 
accomplished - then that person can hold a group responsible for not 
getting things accomplished, or take the blame with that group for not 
getting things accomplished. Moreover, I'm okay with looking like an 
asshole and saying no, but when things like "famsco said no to my 
$technical thing but they had budget for their $ambassador thing" 
happens, that winds up being disruptive for famsco.

This again also comes back to "why does FAmSCo get to hold the money for 
people to do non-ambassador things" - which I suspect would be a large 
question, period.  The budget owner can look at things and see if it's 
necessary/worthwhile, in conjunction with FPL, etc., in the larger scope 
of the project and balance it with other project priorities, etc.

$.02,

-Robyn
>
> Jiri
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> famsco mailing list
> famsco at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/famsco




More information about the famsco mailing list