[FAmSCo] change of FAD status

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2012, 08:26 -0700 schrieb Robyn Bergeron:
>
> So historically the "have a FAD" process was basically... "Ask Max."

Right, and after Max left it has become: "We have no idea who to ask."

> Because the budget for FADs is the same bucket of money as FUDCons - 
> completely different from the "regional spending pot."

I guess that could be changed, couldn't it?

> 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.

Who is that mysterious budget owner we are talking about here?

The concept of the "budget owner" assumes we have a person 
      * that is involved, knows the people and who can make a balanced
        decision whether something is worth doing or or not, and
      * who has the actual power to make that call. This means this
        person either must be empowered by the community (e.g. by
        FAmSCo) or by Red Hat.

Looking around I see nobody who meets this description.

> 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."

I am not sure why we are talking about regions. I mean, we are not
shuffling events around to have them in the cheapest region. FADs need
to be where the people are and I think nobody knows better than the
regional communities.

Max tried to move more and more budget away from FAmSCo to the local
communities. Following this principle it makes perfectly sense for me to
have the money for FADs coming from the regional budget: Move a part of
the premier events budget over to the regional budget and then let the
community decide. And if for whatever reason a FAD does not make sense
for a region, they can spend the money on something else.

> 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.

IHMO FUDCons and FADs are completely different. For FUDCons we have a
bit process and we have a team of organizers. Usually the FPL is part of
that team and makes decisions. FADs on the other hand are usually
organized by one or two people and the FPL has nothing to do with it.

> 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. 

The process is not the problem. We have various processes in place
already and we could expand this or that process to FADs. The budget
owner is the key. As long as we don't have a budget owner - and I see
nobody now or in the foreseeable future - we will not make any
progress. 

We are not having a leadership problem here either. All FADs have event
owner, and they have done an excellent job to make sure the event gets
organized, stuff gets done and goals are achieved. If there is no event
owner driving the FAD, there is no FAD. Case closed, no money wasted.

But the event owner is no budget owner. Event owners are running in
circles to find somebody to approve their budget. They ask FAmSCo and
all we can say is: "This looks like a cool FAD, but we cannot approve
your request because we don't have the money and the power." Do you have
an idea how frustrating this is, both for FAmSCo and for the event
owners? Gerold did an excellent job for Rheinfelden, but he is so fed up
that this probably was the last FAD at Rheinfelden ever - the end of a
long tradition that dates back to a time when there were like 20
ambassadors worldwide.

> 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.

I don't think we ever had a problem with looking like an asshole. We
(FAmSCo) have a problem with letting people down because we are not
allowed to do what we want and can do.

> 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.  

I agree, but I think this is a completely different story. Maybe we need
to pick up the idea of the Finance SIG, but building it up and changing
the processes will take some time. For FADs we need a solution in short
term.

> 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.

While we don't have a budget owner, you just raised the bar even higher.
Now we not only need somebody who
      * is involved in the community and
      * can make a call
but also
      * needs to work closely with the FPL and
      * needs to know the larger scope of the project.

Don't get me wrong: I'd love to have that person, too. I'm wishing back
the old days when I could just ask Max and we got shit done. But these
days are over and Fedora has changed a lot. As long as there is nobody
to take over the role of the budget owner, I suggest we let FAmSCO fill
the gap.

Kind regards,
Christoph