17:00:37 <cwickert> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2012-10-01
17:00:37 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct  1 17:00:37 2012 UTC.  The chair is cwickert. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:37 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:43 <cwickert> #meetingname famsco
17:00:43 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
17:00:49 <cwickert> #topic Roll call
17:00:53 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
17:00:54 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@googlemail.com>
17:00:58 * herlo is here
17:01:14 <aeperezt> .fas aeperezt
17:01:31 <aeperezt> .fas aeperezt
17:01:31 <zodbot> aeperezt: aeperezt 'Alejandro Perez' <alejandro.perez.torres@gmail.com>
17:03:12 <cwickert> #info sesivany is busy today with the opening of the new Red Hat office in Brno (yay!)
17:03:30 <cwickert> #chair nb herlo aeperezt
17:03:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: aeperezt cwickert herlo nb
17:04:09 * cwickert suggests that we wait 5 more minutes for others to show up and for me to edit something in the wiki
17:05:08 <herlo> cwickert: sounds good as I am in the middle of a response to Jiri's email from the other day
17:05:16 <herlo> and it seems pertinent to the meeting
17:05:22 <cwickert> ack
17:06:09 <aeperezt> +1 cwickert
17:09:21 <nb> hi
17:11:59 <cwickert> ok, lets start
17:12:18 <cwickert> #info aeperezt cwickert herlo and nb present
17:12:43 <cwickert> the meeting agenda is at https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/report/9
17:13:18 <cwickert> argh
17:13:50 <cwickert> #topic Budget review guidelines
17:13:57 <cwickert> .famsco 281
17:13:57 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/281
17:14:04 <cwickert> the good old ticket again...
17:14:10 <cwickert> herlo: your take on this?
17:14:57 * herlo looks
17:15:16 <herlo> cwickert: sorry, just finished my reply.
17:15:26 <herlo> cwickert: it's related.
17:15:27 <cwickert> herlo: basically it's about the limits, you said they were counterproductive
17:15:44 <herlo> cwickert: yes, I responded to jiri just now in regards to this
17:15:56 <cwickert> nb: you had an action item last week, right?
17:16:11 <herlo> cwickert: let me find my response in the ml
17:16:19 <cwickert> nb: you wanted to list all the expenses in NA that were over the limit
17:16:25 <herlo> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/2012-October/001169.html
17:16:29 * cwickert looks at herlo's mail
17:16:49 <herlo> cwickert: I think this applies to the discussion, or at least part 2 does
17:17:16 <cwickert> herlo: this doesn't really seem related, I mean, you are two steps too far :)
17:17:42 <herlo> how so?
17:17:57 <herlo> cwickert: just read my response to #2
17:18:13 <herlo> the other points aren't related to the ticket (mostly, anyway)
17:18:17 <cwickert> so we have a gigantic task, and we need to break it down into smaller bits to deal with it
17:18:25 <cwickert> but #2 looks indeed related
17:18:49 <herlo> cwickert: yes, sorry I wasn't completely clear about that.
17:18:58 <cwickert> herlo: hint: try to not use words like "bellyaching", 90% of the people will need to google it
17:18:58 <herlo> #2 was the only part I wanted to discuss
17:18:59 <cwickert> :=
17:19:01 <cwickert> :)
17:19:13 <cwickert> and not even google is helpful here
17:19:25 <herlo> cwickert: haha, it is part of my vernacular. I tend to do such things occasionally
17:19:33 <herlo> belly aching -- complaining or whining
17:20:08 <herlo> cwickert: um, I googled bellyaching and got the following from the dictionary right at the top:
17:20:13 <herlo> Complain noisily or persistently: "heads of departments bellyaching about lack of resources"; "there was plenty of bellyaching".
17:20:22 <cwickert> sorry, I meant my dictionary
17:20:24 <cwickert> anyway
17:20:27 <herlo> haha, okay
17:20:48 <cwickert> can you please explain in simple words, what the problems are with the current limits we set?
17:20:52 <herlo> what does everyone think about my response to #2?
17:21:15 <cwickert> I think you are complainint about things we already discussed
17:21:21 <herlo> cwickert: sure. I think I did a decent enough job there in my response.
17:21:22 <cwickert> you are talking about trust
17:21:35 <cwickert> herlo: "simple words" :)
17:22:01 <cwickert> I think we already addressed your concerns
17:22:06 <herlo> essentially, I see the limits as they currently stand as hard and fast rules
17:22:29 <cwickert> right
17:22:48 <cwickert> I mean, not really, but anyway. what's the problem with that?
17:22:48 <herlo> if we have already addressed them as 'guidelines' and 'recommendations' with some sort of requirement for the regions to use this or come up with their own, then I'm good.
17:23:26 <cwickert> my question is more like: if we implemented these limits, what negative effects does it have for NA?
17:23:31 <herlo> if we want them to be hard and fast rules, there's going to be people who just do things to avoid that
17:23:42 <cwickert> are there any payments that get more painful?
17:23:55 <cwickert> nb: ping
17:23:59 <herlo> they will make two purchases for $900USD instead of getting approval
17:24:07 <herlo> stuff like this
17:24:23 <herlo> I heard this at least a few times in my discussions with folks.
17:24:58 <cwickert> I think this is a corner case
17:25:00 <herlo> the number isn't horribly important, btw. I see it as avoiding policy to get things done.
17:25:37 <cwickert> but again, how many things would be affected by this?
17:25:41 <herlo> cwickert: but if we just require a policy from each region, or let them adopt the one we provided, they can adjust and add things like these 'corner cases'.
17:26:39 <herlo> cwickert: I can see it happening all the time. It's like anything else, you work the system with the loopholes it has. I see the hard and fast limits as just a way to make people work hard enough to avoid the pain.
17:27:02 <herlo> it's really about letting people do the work and getting out of the way
17:27:13 <herlo> I don't want to impose limits just because we can
17:27:19 <herlo> but I've said this more than once
17:27:40 <cwickert> it's not just because we can but because we need to have some kind of safety net
17:27:55 <cwickert> I mean, what exactly are you proposing? no limits at all?
17:27:57 <herlo> cwickert: sure, and my alternative does the same thing
17:28:07 <herlo> cwickert: no, I feel like I'm repeating myself now
17:28:07 <cwickert> what is your alternative?
17:28:18 <cwickert> so do I :)
17:28:19 <herlo> 11:25 < herlo> cwickert: but if we just require a policy from each region, or let them adopt the one we provided,
17:28:30 <herlo> I said exactly this ^^ this is the policy I suggested
17:28:35 <cwickert> we already agreed on this months ago
17:28:40 <herlo> cwickert: we did?
17:28:52 * herlo has not seen anything regarding that.
17:29:07 <cwickert> we said that up to the FAmSCo level the regions can define their own rules for approval
17:29:13 * herlo recalls us discussing it, even agreeing to some point.
17:29:18 <nb> cwickert, pong
17:29:27 <herlo> cwickert: what is the famsco level?
17:29:27 <cwickert> nb: action item?
17:29:32 <herlo> I think that's the issue
17:29:36 <cwickert> USD 1999
17:29:44 <cwickert> that's also the limit for the PO
17:29:44 <nb> afaik the only payment besides media is tshirts were about 2100 or so last time
17:30:09 <herlo> cwickert: oh, so if it hits where rh has to approve, that's the only hard and fast rule?
17:30:10 <nb> and tshirts used a cc not a po
17:30:24 * herlo doesn't recall this, but is happy with this
17:30:36 <cwickert> nb: how about adding this to the ticket?
17:30:51 <cwickert> herlo: right, USD 2000 is a hard limit that we cannot avoid
17:31:00 <cwickert> because this is Red Hat policy
17:31:08 <cwickert> or was it even 1000?
17:31:11 <herlo> cwickert: okay. I just have a wiki page that says otherwise.
17:31:13 * cwickert looks at the ML
17:31:13 <inode0> it isn't that hard because I have spent more than that without a PO
17:31:15 <herlo> cwickert: I believe it was $2k
17:31:42 <inode0> but generally $2k requires a PO as I understand it
17:31:58 <cwickert> right
17:32:16 <herlo> let's put it to $2k for now. In each case, a lot of it will be rubberstamping anyway. And recurring things will be approved and reviewed quickly anyway.
17:32:33 * rbergeron is trying to work on the PO thing, as an FYI.
17:32:35 <cwickert> so the only limit that then remains is USD 500, that is what an individual can approve
17:32:39 <nb> cwickert, to 251?
17:32:45 <cwickert> nb 281
17:33:03 <herlo> cwickert: and that limit just needs to be defined by the region, but as a guideline from FAmSCo.
17:33:30 <herlo> if a region wants to adopt that, I see that as a good price point. I know some regions will want that to be lower and some higher.
17:33:39 <herlo> but let's have the regions decide what they wish to do.
17:33:42 <nb> done
17:34:04 <nb> yeah, i think apac used 300 for their peer review limit
17:34:29 * herlo apologizes if he dragged this on longer than it needed.
17:34:37 <herlo> I clearly missed some discussions.
17:35:13 <cwickert> regardless of the exact amount, do we agree that we need a limit for the expenses an individual can approve?
17:35:21 <herlo> sure
17:35:46 <herlo> it's easy to me to see that they need to set a limit, or adopt the one FAmSCo defines.
17:35:53 <cwickert> I mean, if we just say it was up to the regions, they could decide their limit was USD 1999, so effectively there is none
17:35:57 <herlo> either is good imo.
17:37:23 <herlo> cwickert: right. But again, that's up to them to decide. I don't think a region is going to do that. Plus, I think there's some movement on the budgeting side that would likely prevent that from happening. If someone is daring enough to buy something for $1500USD without approval from the region, getting reimbursed may be hell on them. I see that it would likely be discussed at a meeting or on a mailing list or something first.
17:37:31 * aeperezt great to see some progress in this
17:37:37 <herlo> I know that I couldn't just spend $1500USD without knowing I'd get paid back or have it paid for me.
17:37:38 <cwickert> herlo: so we not only say the regions can define their own process for approval but also they can set their own limits, right?
17:37:47 <herlo> yep
17:37:54 <cwickert> herlo: this is a completely different issue, but anyway
17:37:55 <herlo> as long as they set some and tell everyone what they are
17:38:31 <herlo> cwickert: it's the same issue. Just a different angle maybe.
17:39:04 <herlo> but I think we're in violent agreement, so let's sign off on this.
17:39:11 <nb> +1
17:39:16 <cwickert> whether or not you get reimbursed - that's just why we want a review *in advance*, it's to protect contributors from ordering something that the community (or whoever) later refuses to reimburse
17:39:34 * inode0 doesn't think limits are as important as trust since they can always be sidestepped anyway
17:39:39 <herlo> cwickert: agreed. My point was that if someone doesn't want to follow policy, there's not much we can do.
17:39:49 <cwickert> sure
17:39:56 <cwickert> ok, here is a proposal
17:39:58 <herlo> so like I said, I think we agree.
17:40:12 <herlo> inode0: +1
17:40:30 <nb> well, there does have to be review in advance
17:40:38 <nb> unless a peer says "i trust you to spend money wisely"
17:40:50 <nb> and even then, i would not expect to get reimbursed for something that is totally insane
17:41:02 <nb> even if inode0 or someone says i can spend money without advance approval
17:41:02 <cwickert> proposal: have regions not only define their own rules for approval but also their own limits. The only hard limit we have is $ 2000, this is both the PO limit as well as the FAmSCo limit
17:41:16 <cwickert> nb: we already had this months ago...
17:41:24 <nb> yeah
17:41:29 <herlo> nb: if they want to be reimbursed, there needs to be review or trust (which would have likely required a review at some point)
17:41:33 <herlo> cwickert: +1
17:41:36 <nb> herlo, agreed
17:41:38 <nb> cwickert, +1
17:41:48 <cwickert> can we quickly vote on the proposal for the minutes?
17:41:50 <cwickert> +1
17:42:11 <cwickert> aeperezt: ping
17:42:12 <herlo> just one more, aeperezt ?
17:42:19 <cwickert> aeperezt: we need your vote
17:42:28 <aeperezt> +1
17:42:49 <cwickert> #agreed regions can not only define their own rules for approval but also their own limits. The only hard limit we have is $ 2000, this is both the PO limit as well as the FAmSCo limit
17:42:54 <cwickert> yay :)
17:43:09 <cwickert> ok, the next thing is that all regions work on policies
17:43:15 <herlo> YAY!
17:43:18 <cwickert> I think APAC has already done so
17:43:23 <cwickert> EMEA has, too
17:43:28 <cwickert> but it is not yet documented
17:43:34 <herlo> and I think NA will likely have something soonish.
17:43:38 <cwickert> so my next proposal is:
17:43:44 * herlo looks at inode0 as a suggested topic for next NA meeting :)
17:44:16 <cwickert> have a person from every region work on a proposal and draft it. After 2 weeks from now FAmSCo will revisit the policies and approve or reject them
17:44:22 <cwickert> does that sound like a plan?
17:45:05 <aeperezt> +1
17:46:20 <cwickert> herlo, nb: ...
17:46:35 <herlo> cwickert: I don't think we need to approve or reject them, just confirm that the region 'has' a policy
17:46:37 * cwickert wonders if the NA people are talking in query now
17:46:46 <herlo> cwickert: they are to some extent
17:46:55 <nb> herlo, +1
17:47:32 <cwickert> herlo: we'll probably rubberstamp them, but I would like to have the opportunity to veto something if a region decides to so something insane
17:47:40 <herlo> it's the 'get out of the way' part that I'm trying to follow here.
17:47:53 <cwickert> understood
17:48:22 <nb> proposal: FAmSCo will discuss regional policies next week and will discuss any changes needed and address them with the relevant region(s)
17:48:22 <herlo> cwickert: sure, I think maybe we can say we'll give it a peer review and request changes as necessary?
17:48:32 <nb> maybe that works?
17:48:41 <cwickert> nb: good working
17:48:41 <nb> in 2 weeks i mean
17:48:45 <nb> not next week
17:48:49 <cwickert> erm, wording
17:49:32 <herlo> right, 2 weeks. Gives each region enough time to draft something.
17:49:32 <cwickert> so regions have two weeks to come up with something and we'll revisit it, right?
17:49:36 <cwickert> ok
17:49:43 <nb> yeah
17:50:00 <herlo> +1
17:50:19 <cwickert> I mean, if we are not happy with it, we won't reject it outright, we'll just give it back to the creator and say "hey, we think you need to work on this or that"
17:50:20 <herlo> we need to make sure that it gets discussed at each regional meeting/mailing list/whatever.
17:50:46 <herlo> cwickert: yeah, I want to be friendly and help any region along. I don't foresee any craziness, however.
17:51:00 <cwickert> herlo: yes, that is actually more important than us approving or vetoing something
17:51:14 <cwickert> is 2 weeks enough for the regional meetings?
17:51:47 * herlo wonders
17:52:04 <herlo> I think maybe 3-4 weeks, but we could start reviewing in as little as 2 weeks.
17:52:07 <cwickert> lets say we look at the progress in 2 weeks
17:52:13 <cwickert> final deadline 4 weeks then
17:53:24 <cwickert> propsal FAmSCo will revisit the progress of regional budget policies in 2 weeks and discuss any changes needed and address them with the relevant region(s). In 4 weeks from now, every region should have a policy in place.
17:54:39 <herlo> cwickert: sounds good
17:54:49 * cwickert counts that as a +1
17:54:49 <herlo> s/changes needed/give them a peer review/
17:54:56 <herlo> but +1 otherwise
17:54:58 <cwickert> +1
17:55:00 <cwickert> ok
17:55:00 <nb> +2
17:55:03 <nb> +1 i mean
17:55:03 <nb> lol
17:55:04 <aeperezt> +1
17:55:49 <cwickert> #agreed FAmSCo will revisit the progress of regional budget policies in 2 weeks, give them a peer review and address them with the relevant region(s). In 4 weeks from now, every region should have a policy in place.
17:55:55 <cwickert> ok, at least something
17:56:01 <cwickert> nice to see some progress
17:56:13 <cwickert> ok, now lets make individual action items for people
17:56:23 <cwickert> so we have somebody to point fingers at ;)
17:56:42 * herlo has a hard stop at the top of the hour
17:56:49 <cwickert> #action sesivany and cwickert to work on the Policy for EMEA
17:57:05 * aeperezt latam
17:57:16 <cwickert> herlo: so have I, that's why I want to have people in charge before we close this meeting
17:57:18 <nb> #action herlo and nb to work on the policy for NA
17:57:29 <cwickert> #action aeperezt to work on the policy for LATAM
17:58:03 <cwickert> #action bckurera to work on the APAC policy (almost done)
17:58:10 <cwickert> ok, last but not least
17:58:33 <cwickert> where should we follow up with the policies?
17:58:43 * cwickert created a wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Cwickert/Budget
17:58:54 <cwickert> this is more or less the same as my initial mail to famsco list
17:59:40 <herlo> cwickert: I figured we would just ask the regions to post them on the ml in response to whatever announcement we make
18:00:05 <cwickert> ok
18:00:30 <cwickert> ok, then that's it
18:00:37 <cwickert> anything else for today?
18:00:54 * herlo is done. but had one thing
18:01:09 <herlo> #topic open floor
18:01:13 <cwickert> shoot
18:01:23 <herlo> I just wanted to let everyone know about the transition for FAMA
18:01:56 <herlo> I wrote a blog post and an email yesterday regarding it and wanted to make sure everyone knew the process. If you wouldn't mind making sure that mentors in your regions have read it and are aware of the adjustments I've made to the process.
18:02:04 <herlo> It's nothign too grand, just making sure people know
18:02:24 <herlo> that's it
18:02:35 <herlo> http://sexysexypenguins.com/2012/09/30/fedora-ambassadors-update-september-2012/
18:02:38 * herlo is out
18:03:03 <cwickert> #info FAMA (Fedora Ambassadors Membership Administration) is now done by herlo. more on that at http://sexysexypenguins.com/2012/09/30/fedora-ambassadors-update-september-2012/ and thanks to kital for his hard work over the past years
18:03:06 <cwickert> #endmeeting