This section explains the criteria typically used by planners to decide whether to subsidize the travel of a specific applicant.
Relevance
Is this person delivering information that is pertinent to an ongoing project of concern at the event?
For example, a FUDCon that includes a critical brainstorming session on
Fedora packaging could be more effective with the attendance of a
proven packager.
Does the event provide an opportunity for this particular
person to attract contribution to one or more areas in the Fedora
Project? An event that attracts computer-based designers, for
instance, might present an opportunity for a member of the Fedora Design
team to attract new, skilled contributors.
Is this person a current contributor? Current
contributors with a proven history of involvement in some sense are a
known quantity. This does not mean that sponsorship shouldn't go to new
or potential contributors, but it is a factor for consideration.
Criticality
Does this person have demonstrated skills in an area that will promote reaching the goals of the event?
For example, if the Fedora Project's speaking schedule at an event
requires someone with expertise on RPM packaging and the Fedora build
system, it would make sense to sponsor the travel of someone who could
give those talks.
Are there clear deliverables attached to this person's attendance that otherwise cannot be achieved?
Deliverables come in many forms, such as working code; completed
documentation; or key decisions. If other contributors involved in the
same area are expected to attend already, will this person's absence
negatively impact their work at the event?
How important is this subsidy to the person's attendance?
Without the full subsidy, will the applicant not be able to attend at
all? Will a partial subsidy suffice? Would a change in travel plans,
such as attending part of the event, still allow this person's goals to
be achieved?
Specificity
Has this person provided substantial information about the specific objectives to achieve through attending?
Sponsors should look at the proposal critically, because there are
usually more requests than can be filled for a given event. The best
requests tend to reflect clear vision from the applicants of exactly
what they will achieve through attendance, and a link between that
vision and the larger objectives of the Fedora Project or a specific
team.
Are the objectives achievable within the time frame of the event?
Sometimes it may not be possible to meet every objective of the event
despite best intentions and hard work. Nevertheless, sponsors should
also carefully consider whether the deliverables can reasonably be
finished by the end of the event. Setting and meeting reasonable
expectations is a good habit for any project.
Proximity
Is this person located in the same region as the event?
Regionally co-located people generally require less funding. It is not
cost effective, for instance, to fund the travel of multiple people from
North America to a European event. In specific cases there may be call
for such subsidies, but in general regional events should reflect
regional attendance and participation.
Expense
How expensive is the subsidy? Each event typically has a
set budget; a higher subsidy amount should carry with it higher
expectations, more criticality, or other benefits that justify the
expense. Keep in mind that the transparent approval process creates
better accountability for sponsors in making decisions.