On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
A few comments/questions.
- I would almost prefer to see premier events not be split out
separately, and instead force the Council to transparently allocate them from their budget. This would lead to a very large budget for the Council on paper, but it allows us 1) provide transparency around what we view as important enough to spend money on, b) gives us greater flexibility overall to cover events which are going to vary in cost.
It isn't quite clear to me if the Fedora Premier Events are still intended to be the responsibility of OSAS or of the Council. I think moving them to the Council, whether lumped with Discretionary Council Budget or not would be good for transparency and Council flexibility.
How are the three regional budget delegates going to be chosen?
Is there an education and review plan to make sure they are
successful in these roles?
- What happens if there is difficulty getting 3 people to volunteer
for these roles?
I suspect this will be a problem after the excitement of something new wears off.
- Reimbursement after an Event Report doesn't work very well for
premier events. The attendee has already traveled to the event and had their accommodations covered for the most part. That is typically because they have submitted an accepted talk or some other valuable contribution to the event itself. You might wish to rephrase this a bit.
Event reports being required for reimbursement doesn't work that well for lots of situations. And expecting reports with any sort of useful/valid impact analysis to be presented within two weeks of an event is unreasonable. I'm not sure the people we send to an event to promote Fedora are necessarily the best people to do impact analysis anyway, but that is way too short of a window to do much that is meaningful.
I think we would maybe get better reports if we asked for one report per event rather than one report per funded person per event and if we involved marketing/magazine writers to help present the activities at the event rather than relying solely on exhausted ambassadors to do this immediately after an event.
- With only one guaranteed travel accommodation included as a benefit,
I fear we're going to run into difficulties deciding who gets that benefit out of the three.
Yeah, potentially three people do something and one based on some unknown factors gets a big benefit - recipe for unhappy campers.
John
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0600, inode0 wrote:
- I would almost prefer to see premier events not be split out
separately, and instead force the Council to transparently allocate
It isn't quite clear to me if the Fedora Premier Events are still intended to be the responsibility of OSAS or of the Council. I think moving them to the Council, whether lumped with Discretionary Council Budget or not would be good for transparency and Council flexibility.
From the wiki, the word "premier" label means:
* organized by the Fedora community * all about Fedora
I find this a little odd, because the word literally means "most important or best", and I don't think that's actually what we mean.
My preference would be to not use this label for FADs. If we want to keep using the word, let's call Flock _the_ premier global Fedora event, and FUDCons premier regional events. I don't think we even need a special term for FADs.
And, I think *some* FADs make sense from the central community budget (whether we call that the Council budget or something else), while others — like the ambassadors' planning FADs — make sense to me to be part of the regional budgets directly.
This implies regionalizing some things which have not been traditionally in the ambassadors scope — for example, a translation activity day focused a language or languages of a region might be best planned and organized within that region.
[will reply to other points in your message separately]
Hi,
2015-11-06 22:51 GMT+07:00 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0600, inode0 wrote:
- I would almost prefer to see premier events not be split out
separately, and instead force the Council to transparently allocate
It isn't quite clear to me if the Fedora Premier Events are still intended to be the responsibility of OSAS or of the Council. I think moving them to the Council, whether lumped with Discretionary Council Budget or not would be good for transparency and Council flexibility.
From the wiki, the word "premier" label means:
- organized by the Fedora community
- all about Fedora
I find this a little odd, because the word literally means "most important or best", and I don't think that's actually what we mean.
My preference would be to not use this label for FADs. If we want to keep using the word, let's call Flock _the_ premier global Fedora event, and FUDCons premier regional events. I don't think we even need a special term for FADs.
And, I think *some* FADs make sense from the central community budget (whether we call that the Council budget or something else), while others — like the ambassadors' planning FADs — make sense to me to be part of the regional budgets directly.
then they will not happen, they eat easily a third of the regional budget. But there is still need for them.
This implies regionalizing some things which have not been traditionally in the ambassadors scope — for example, a translation activity day focused a language or languages of a region might be best planned and organized within that region.
[will reply to other points in your message separately]
br gnokii
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- ambassadors mailing list ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 6:01 PM, S.Kemter sirko.kemter@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2015-11-06 22:51 GMT+07:00 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0600, inode0 wrote:
- I would almost prefer to see premier events not be split out
separately, and instead force the Council to transparently allocate
It isn't quite clear to me if the Fedora Premier Events are still intended to be the responsibility of OSAS or of the Council. I think moving them to the Council, whether lumped with Discretionary Council Budget or not would be good for transparency and Council flexibility.
From the wiki, the word "premier" label means:
- organized by the Fedora community
- all about Fedora
I find this a little odd, because the word literally means "most important or best", and I don't think that's actually what we mean.
For ambassadors, "premier" is kind of opposite to "local" events such as release parties. The actual different lies in who (region or council) decide the budget approval and where the budget is directly from (regional allocation, or OSAS). It might take a while to ambassadors everywhere to get used to an updated interpretation.
My preference would be to not use this label for FADs. If we want to keep using the word, let's call Flock _the_ premier global Fedora event, and FUDCons premier regional events. I don't think we even need a special term for FADs.
And, I think *some* FADs make sense from the central community budget (whether we call that the Council budget or something else), while others — like the ambassadors' planning FADs — make sense to me to be part of the regional budgets directly.
then they will not happen, they eat easily a third of the regional budget. But there is still need for them.
I've the same concern. FADs typically involve people flying together and meet f2f. It is costly, especially in APAC. So although putting regional ambassador budget planning FADs in its own budget makes a lot of sense, a major adjustment of regional budget allocation should be expected.
Am 07.11.2015 um 01:01 schrieb S.Kemter:
Hi,
2015-11-06 22:51 GMT+07:00 Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org mailto:mattdm@fedoraproject.org>:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0600, inode0 wrote: > > - I would almost prefer to see premier events not be split out > > separately, and instead force the Council to transparently allocate > It isn't quite clear to me if the Fedora Premier Events are still > intended to be the responsibility of OSAS or of the Council. I think > moving them to the Council, whether lumped with Discretionary Council > Budget or not would be good for transparency and Council flexibility. >From the wiki, the word "premier" label means: * organized by the Fedora community * all about Fedora I find this a little odd, because the word literally means "most important or best", and I don't think that's actually what we mean. My preference would be to not use this label for FADs. If we want to keep using the word, let's call Flock _the_ premier global Fedora event, and FUDCons premier regional events. I don't think we even need a special term for FADs. And, I think *some* FADs make sense from the central community budget (whether we call that the Council budget or something else), while others — like the ambassadors' planning FADs — make sense to me to be part of the regional budgets directly.then they will not happen, they eat easily a third of the regional budget. But there is still need for them.
^^ as long as you are a one-man-show, responsible for your own and just your own budget and reimbursement I absolutly agree Sirko. BUT if you take care and be responsible for a wider area as well as more events and people, it is imho mandatory that you get all responsible of each country (either they are nominatd or not) to one place to get things and numbers done. And it is worth, that such a meeting happens because it brings a quality of numbers which are the budget for Red Hat for a complete year with a difference of maybe 10% between forecast and reality. This is what we did in the past years when FAD Rheinfelden in EMEA happened.
Gerold
On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 07:01:36AM +0700, S.Kemter wrote:
And, I think *some* FADs make sense from the central community budget (whether we call that the Council budget or something else), while others — like the ambassadors' planning FADs — make sense to me to be part of the regional budgets directly.
then they will not happen, they eat easily a third of the regional budget. But there is still need for them.
Well, they have to be paid for _somehow_. I'm suggesting that it makes sense to move that line item from the general pool to the regional pool. Are you saying that if that happened, the regions would prefer to spend that money in a different way and wouldn't do the planning meetings?
My preference would be to not use this label for FADs. If we want to keep using the word, let's call Flock _the_ premier global Fedora event, and FUDCons premier regional events. I don't think we even need a special term for FADs.
We've discussed this before, but I'll point out again that Flock came out of the NA and EMEA FUDCons. If it is indeed the premier /global/ event, APAC and LATAM have two premier events, including one annually each, and NA/EMEA have one that is only on their own continent every other year.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:11AM -0500, Ruth Suehle wrote:
We've discussed this before, but I'll point out again that Flock came out of the NA and EMEA FUDCons. If it is indeed the premier /global/ event, APAC and LATAM have two premier events, including one annually each, and NA/EMEA have one that is only on their own continent every other year.
I really feel like three (or four) regional events aren't, in total, as valuable as a global one. (Just as a Flock that brings people from EMEA and NA together every year is better than having a double-sized FUDCon in each region every other year.)
I know, though, that gobal travel is very expensive. I'd love to hear people's ideas. What do you (and everyone) think about rolling APAC and LATAM FUDCons in too? Maybe even rotating between all four regions?
Then, maybe we _do_ spend a little more on social events for contributors in the other regions durning the years where Flock isn't there, as bonding time for contributors who can't make the trip. And, for user outreach, focus on non-Fedora-centric events combined with a new meetup strategy.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:11AM -0500, Ruth Suehle wrote:
We've discussed this before, but I'll point out again that Flock came out of the NA and EMEA FUDCons. If it is indeed the premier /global/ event, APAC and LATAM have two premier events, including one annually each, and NA/EMEA have one that is only on their own continent every other year.
I really feel like three (or four) regional events aren't, in total, as valuable as a global one. (Just as a Flock that brings people from EMEA and NA together every year is better than having a double-sized FUDCon in each region every other year.)
I agree. They are not as valuable. As I see it, it is not only about meeting up fellow contributors. A lot of important discussions happen at Flock. A lot of teams try to have FAD around Flock. Now many contributors from APAC or LATAM, who want to be part of these discussions, cannot be there due to budgetary restrictions.
I know, though, that gobal travel is very expensive. I'd love to hear people's ideas. What do you (and everyone) think about rolling APAC and LATAM FUDCons in too? Maybe even rotating between all four regions?
I would love to roll all the Flock and FUDCons into one. For me, location is not important. Many of us would be fine if it happens more times in EU, because (i think) travel would be cheaper. Basically any locations works. Let us just put contributors from all regions together.
Then, maybe we _do_ spend a little more on social events for contributors in the other regions durning the years where Flock isn't there, as bonding time for contributors who can't make the trip. And, for user outreach, focus on non-Fedora-centric events combined with a new meetup strategy.
+1. For outreach, what we have eventually observed (I think Sankarshan pointed it out) in India, is that smaller targeted events, where mentorship is offered, are more helpful. Fedora's infra team has seen good benefits from this. Cloud WG is also seeing a bunch of guys from APAC volunteering for certain tasks. This addition in user base and eventually contributor base happened largely because of existing contributors promoting Fedora in smaller, non-Fedora-specific events and then helping out new comers to get onboard.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- ambassadors mailing list ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0600, inode0 wrote:
Event reports being required for reimbursement doesn't work that well for lots of situations. And expecting reports with any sort of useful/valid impact analysis to be presented within two weeks of an event is unreasonable. I'm not sure the people we send to an event to promote Fedora are necessarily the best people to do impact analysis anyway, but that is way too short of a window to do much that is meaningful.
I'd really like to hear ideas on who (and how, what, etc) would be good for doing impact analysis.
I think we would maybe get better reports if we asked for one report per event rather than one report per funded person per event and if we involved marketing/magazine writers to help present the activities at the event rather than relying solely on exhausted ambassadors to do this immediately after an event.
This makes a lot of sense to me — and in general fits with the the idea of better collaboration/communication between ambassadors and marketing.
- With only one guaranteed travel accommodation included as a benefit,
I fear we're going to run into difficulties deciding who gets that benefit out of the three.
Yeah, potentially three people do something and one based on some unknown factors gets a big benefit - recipe for unhappy campers.
I'd love to live in a world where it'd be easy for us to tell our sponsor that it's worth sending all three from all regions. Maybe we can get there. In the world we have where that might not be possible, I think the best we can do is reduce the "unknown factors".
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0600, inode0 wrote:
Event reports being required for reimbursement doesn't work that well for lots of situations. And expecting reports with any sort of useful/valid impact analysis to be presented within two weeks of an event is unreasonable. I'm not sure the people we send to an event to promote Fedora are necessarily the best people to do impact analysis anyway, but that is way too short of a window to do much that is meaningful.
I'd really like to hear ideas on who (and how, what, etc) would be good for doing impact analysis.
As laid out, event reporters are not (necessarily) doing the analysis, only the reporting. This type of reporting is mostly about reporting raw numbers and gathering links.
--Snipped From Wiki--
- Attendees contacted or reached - Fedora Badges issued at or as a result of the event - Pull requests and patches submitted as a result of event - Bugs reported - Candidates sourced (i.e. Outreachy, GSoC, and/or other FOSS programs) - Articles/Videos/Photos/Content published by or about regional team - Social media mentions and interactions generated by event - Other supporting evidence data that shows the results of your effort - Links to and reach of Posts on Fedora Channels
--Snipped From Wiki--
Most of these elements can be tracked by:
- Keeping a Sign-in sheet at the event - Having a QR code for badge awarding - using tags such as "python3 VFAD" to associate with an event with a PR/Bugzilla Report - Candidate sourced would join the Outreachy or Summer-Coding mail list, and should include which event they started at in their introduction email. - Articles/Content/Videos may be harder to find, but we want them for more than just reimbursement, we want to promote awesome Fedora things. By using a hashtag for an event, we should be able to aggregate some of that stuff from social media. - Anec-data and other personal accounts can be included as a blurb when sending the report. - CommOps and Fedora Social Media Manager (via OSAS) can help promote these, and get metrics too.
As far as analysis, we need to start with data and metrics, which don't necessarily need to be number-crunched by the ambassadors.
I think we would maybe get better reports if we asked for one report per event rather than one report per funded person per event and if we involved marketing/magazine writers to help present the activities at the event rather than relying solely on exhausted ambassadors to do this immediately after an event.
I'm ok with this, which is why having a dedicated storyteller to aggregate the information for an event report was a proposed solution.
This makes a lot of sense to me — and in general fits with the the idea of better collaboration/communication between ambassadors and marketing.
Agreed. Ideally, the storyteller would be working with mktg and commops to get their event promoted on the channels.
- With only one guaranteed travel accommodation included as a benefit,
I fear we're going to run into difficulties deciding who gets that benefit out of the three.
Yeah, potentially three people do something and one based on some unknown factors gets a big benefit - recipe for unhappy campers.
I'd love to live in a world where it'd be easy for us to tell our sponsor that it's worth sending all three from all regions. Maybe we can get there. In the world we have where that might not be possible, I think the best we can do is reduce the "unknown factors".
Yes, preferably we'd be able to get travel funded for all members, but I think that is something that we'd need to make the case for in a future budget cycle. Four regions x three reps = 12 Funded trips, which will be rather costly without having that be a planned portion of the budget.
If there are other benefits for being a regional delegate besides funded event travel, I'd be very interested to hear what people have in mind (Ambassador Polo/Swag kits? Featured articles on the Magazine/CommBlog?)
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Aditya Patawari -
Alick Zhao -
Gerold -
inode0 -
Matthew Miller -
Remy DeCausemaker -
Ruth Suehle -
S.Kemter