On Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 01:17 PM, Nemanja Milošević wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply! :)

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Robert Mayr <robyduck@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

1) Ambassadors normally do their main activity during events, and
their goal is to gather new contributors. We have Fedora booths where
people can ask about Fedora, and we *want* to have prepared
contributors sitting at the booth. Ambassadors are the most qualified
contributors for this kind of activity because they get a very
specific mentoring for that.

I completely agree and this is something that initially drove me to the conclusion that only Ambassadors should be the ones who get funding.

I think we need to be very open here.  If, for example, we have a booth at a python conference, I'd prefer to have experienced python members of our project at the booth in addition to ambassadors, especially if the ambassadors are not experienced python folks.  This will allow the messaging of our booth to be targeted to the audience and the ambassador can fill in the "holes."  This is how many organizations handle booths.

 
2) We don't have only ambassadors who are able to get on their *sales*
hat, we have very passionate contributors out there who are not
ambassadors, but who often give a talk during events. These talks
mostly are technical and about specific groups they are contributing
to. These activity is very useful when you look at it from a user
experience.


Also completely agree with you. In my opinion if someone is talking about Fedora and promoting it publicly, especially during a conference then we should be able to help with funding that person. But again, an issue arises, should that person be a long-standing contributor? Otherwise you will get ton of requests from people presenting some Fedora related topics asking for funding. Do we want this? Also, how can we be sure that this person will promote Fedora in the right way? (knowledgeable enough to answer questions or point people to the right way)

This is very definitional.  Rather than try to make a rule, make decisions on a case-by-case basis.  If someone asks for funding and has no way to show contribution/participation/expertise, deny it.  If they do, approve it.  Don't make a hurdle, instead say what you want.  Perhaps, "We want experienced contributors giving talks/etc. about their areas of knowledge and passion."  If we need to do research on a person or ask their other membership groups, that's cool.  Let's not create rules until we have to have them.

In some ways, getting flooded with great ideas would be a good problem to have.

Even more this applies if you want to organize an event:
In my understanding we really want ambassadors organizing events
because they (should) know how to make all the necessary steps.

Again, completely agree. Ambassadors are the ones who received "training" and they should be organizers.

Perhaps we could word this as "pairing with an ambassador."  I'd like to see events that our ambassadors can't conceive of happen because we have dedicated enthusiastic contributors who know how to talk to our target audiences.

 
So, the best is to look at it case by case, without forgetting the
main goal we want regions to use their budget for: gather new
contributors, which means being present at events where we can get
them and avoid events where we probably just waste money.

The goal is clear: make real impact and promote Fedora, but the path not so much. Still we cannot answer who should be funded and who not. It's a difficult and personal topic.

With open debate and transparency we can have these conversations.  But to have these conversations we need people to come to us.  If we have too many hurdles, rules, walls, and misconceptions people will self-select away from ever talking to us.

regards,

bex