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.
 
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)
 
You should have some visible contributions and at least a reason (talk) if you are not an
ambassador.

Now we are definitely pinpointing the issue. What defines a viable contribution? What is a talk we would like to help? How can we decide between contributor A and B if they are not ambassadors? In my opinion this is the main question we need to answer because we cannot objectively say that someone's contributions are more important than some others. And that's why it's difficult to say whether someone should be funded or not.
 
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.
 
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.

I still think we need to define a rule on who can be funded. I don't know how to do it but I think it needs to be done because we are missing some opportunities.

Maybe we can point someone as adjudicator. That person would still be subjective, but at least this way at least some contributors can be funded. Even if we do this we still need some basic rules. For example I believe a contributor should have their FAS account for at least one year before applying. And also have -any- activity in the last year or so. This can be easily checked with data grepper. Another arising issue with this is that it is a long process to become ambassador now. Which means we will probably miss some opportunities to promote Fedora, if we can't fund non-ambassdors.

tl;dr: It's subjective and I think we should point someone to be the "judge" in these situations.

Kind regards,
Nemanja