18:00:51 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2016-05-02) 18:00:51 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon May 2 18:00:51 2016 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:51 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2016-05-02)' 18:00:53 <mattdm> #meetingname council 18:00:53 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council' 18:00:55 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb cwickert langdon decause robyduck tatica 18:00:55 <zodbot> Current chairs: cwickert decause jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck tatica 18:00:57 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes 18:01:00 <jkurik> .hello jkurik 18:01:01 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com> 18:01:03 <mattdm> hello everyone 18:01:27 <langdon> .hello langdon 18:01:27 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com> 18:01:41 <jwb> hi 18:01:45 <mattdm> decause mentioned that he'll be a few minutes late 18:02:54 <cwickert1> .fas cwickert 18:02:54 <zodbot> cwickert1: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@gmail.com> 18:03:35 * mattdm waits on decause, robyduck, and hopefully tatica 18:03:46 <decause> .hello decause 18:03:47 <zodbot> decause: decause 'Remy DeCausemaker' <decause@redhat.com> 18:03:47 <cwickert1> mattdm: please make me chair, I forgot cwickert in the office :( 18:04:10 <langdon> #chair cwickert1 18:04:10 <zodbot> Current chairs: cwickert cwickert1 decause jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck tatica 18:04:28 <langdon> cwickert1, is cwickert in a chair at the officE?!?! 18:05:05 <mattdm> hmmm :) 18:05:17 <mattdm> okay let's get started... 18:05:18 <cwickert1> langdon: my workstation is still running and cwickert is logged in there 18:05:23 <mattdm> #topic Agenda 18:05:41 <mattdm> okay, so the basic agenda is: continued budget discussion, ideally with something concrete coming out at the end 18:05:58 * decause is still reconciling, brb 18:06:05 <mattdm> (whether an actual decision, or a ticket in which to make that final vote, if everyone can't be here today) 18:06:13 <mattdm> decause: how much time do you need? 18:07:27 <langdon> mattdm, we were fixing up the budget doc.. looks much prettier now.. well.. you want it to be less pretty.. cause "pink" means there are bad calcs :) 18:07:39 <mattdm> apparently at least two minutes :) 18:07:40 <langdon> i might recommend switching to something else and coming back to budget 18:07:50 <langdon> was there something else? 18:08:04 <mattdm> I think everything on the table right now is budget related 18:08:07 <langdon> or i could explain the changes in the spreadsheet if people want to look at it 18:08:14 <langdon> while decause finishes the data 18:08:16 <mattdm> langdon: let's do that. 18:08:29 <jwb> URL again? 18:08:52 * langdon digs.. sorry 18:09:02 <langdon> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-budget/blob/master/f/FY17/adjustedannualbudgets/council/proposedadjustedbudgetfy17.ods 18:09:49 <langdon> so.. by way of warning.. there are a couple of bugs in the conditional formatting which I know about to fix.. but need to wait for decause cause there is no merge with ods (to my knowledge) 18:10:32 <langdon> so.. if you open that up.. you can see there is a legend.. but suffice to say.. you can play with the yellow, white is calc'd or static.. and if you get pink.. it means you have bad numbers.. 18:11:10 <langdon> the e,f,g columns on the regions are what seem to have bad conditionals right this minute 18:11:14 <langdon> qs? thoughtS? 18:11:15 <robyduck> .fas robyduck 18:11:16 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com> 18:11:18 <langdon> helpful? 18:11:29 * langdon waves to robyduck 18:11:44 * robyduck waves back 18:11:54 * nb notes that last year, NA spent about $5k less because due to problems getting RH purchasing to set up new, less expensive vendor for media, we didn't end up ordering F23 media 18:12:11 <nb> so i don't want that to look like we don't need that amoung if you look at historical spend 18:12:31 * langdon has no idea why yellow == editable... legacy of the spreadsheets i had in a prior life 18:13:08 * mattdm is looking at spreadsheet 18:13:14 <mattdm> #topic looking at spreadsheet 18:13:22 <decause> ok, pushed latest 18:13:27 <decause> #info Spreadsheets are hard 18:13:30 <mattdm> nb: noted. 18:13:57 <decause> #info Spreasheet merging with git = harder 18:14:14 * langdon fixes formatting in latest 18:14:43 <mattdm> decause, langdon: is there a section with the total budget _requests_ from the regions? 18:14:50 <cwickert1> decause: does that mean we need to re(down)load the sheet or what? 18:15:00 <jkurik> cwickert1: yes 18:15:13 <mattdm> git pull and then Reload from the file menu :) 18:15:34 <decause> mattdm: there is not a spreadsheet for that, no 18:16:15 <jkurik> langdon: no ping color anymore ? 18:16:22 <decause> mattdm: I have *some* proposals totaled from some regions 18:16:29 <langdon> jkurik, ping color?> 18:16:36 <decause> jkurik: yeah, pink was bad, we fixed the bad ;) 18:16:48 * decause crosses fingers 18:16:51 <mattdm> decause: sorry for bringing that up all of the sudden 18:17:21 <decause> mattdm: no worries, it's sort of the next step. knowing how far off expectations will be from reality 18:17:23 <mattdm> i only see emea and latam in the repo 18:17:41 <jkurik> langdon: s/ping/ping/ too late for me 18:17:45 <decause> mattdm: yes, that's correct, with most recent commits from potty 18:17:48 <decause> potty++ 18:17:50 <decause> thank you 18:17:50 <langdon> jkurik, ha 18:18:28 <decause> mattdm: I do have some work that award3535 sent me too, that he may have emailed to me but not committed to repo 18:18:57 * decause checks 18:19:03 <decause> it's historical though 18:19:07 <decause> not proposed 18:19:10 <decause> now that I think about it 18:19:19 <mattdm> nb: do you know anything about proposed NA budget? 18:19:20 <cwickert1> decause: AFAIK you have the budgets from all regions. Can't you just add them up? I'm afraid people don't send push requests 18:20:06 <mattdm> #info from the repo, LATAM total proposed is $23180 and APAC total proposed is $33250 18:20:17 <mattdm> #info NA and APAC info not in repo yet 18:20:33 <decause> cwickert1: sure, anyone can add them up, but ideally, they are added up by the regions, where the reporting is supposed to take place 18:20:38 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-budget 18:20:39 * nb thought we submitted something 18:20:48 <nb> decause, we didn't submit anything? I thought we did 18:20:49 <decause> nb: I got something, but it was not tallied 18:21:02 <mattdm> decause: but it was a proposed budget, at least? 18:21:07 <decause> I added what I had to the repo, /me double checks 18:21:09 <nb> not tallied? so all you need is someone to =SUM() it? 18:21:42 <decause> nb: sort of... when there are "????" or "no report" you can't just =SUM(...) 18:21:55 <nb> oh 18:22:07 <nb> decause, can you send me what you have? 18:22:08 <mattdm> What does "no report" mean in the context of a proposed budget? 18:22:25 <decause> mattdm: no event report, or no receipts 18:22:31 <nb> oh 18:22:34 <decause> or just empty-string 18:22:39 <decause> nb: chck the pagure repo 18:22:44 <decause> everything should be in there 18:23:09 <decause> I'm still -1 with worrying about what the requests are before we choose the central budget 18:23:11 <cwickert1> decause: Ideally, yes, but I think if we have the numbers, there is no reason to wait another two weeks for pull requests. 18:23:13 <decause> we have laid out the scenarios 18:23:31 <decause> there are really only 2 questions 18:23:39 <decause> 1) FADs 18:23:41 <decause> 2) Outreachy 18:23:44 <nb> decause, there is nothing in proposed annual budgets for NA 18:23:44 <decause> are we doing some/all 18:25:07 * nb likes hFAD/hDI 18:25:56 <decause> what the regions have requested only makes a difference during the August cycle 18:26:02 <decause> (aka, next years budget showing up) 18:26:28 <decause> though a "good to know" we already passed the point in the cycle where those numbers can possibly make a difference 18:26:42 <decause> and to do it now gives the wrong impression about when that kind of number has meaning 18:27:02 <decause> the only reason that we're reconciling those now, is because the new budget site just went up, and we're doing housekeeping 18:27:11 <decause> trying our best to make sense of what happend in the past 18:27:15 <decause> and be transparent 18:27:21 <decause> but, that is, History 18:28:08 <langdon> btw formatting should be fixed up now .. if anyone wants to see it 18:28:16 <decause> langdon++ 18:28:41 <mattdm> nb FADs are relatively straightforward to justify, since they have concrete outputs and we can see the results. 18:28:50 <nb> tue 18:28:53 <nb> true 18:29:59 <mattdm> I'd like it if we could have a lot more of that from the regional spending... if we give out X number of DVDs at $Y, we get Z new users, of which (crap, ran out of letters) W become contributors 18:30:34 <nb> well, i think the problem is no one has ever asked for that before, so we haven't really developed metrics for that 18:30:43 <nb> and i'm afraid what all of this new stuff is going to do to the regions 18:30:45 <decause> missed a spot... fixed it :P 18:30:46 <decause> pushed 18:30:53 <nb> cutting our budget by so much 18:31:56 <mattdm> nb well, again, the budget isn't _actually_ smalller 18:32:01 <mattdm> we're just _looking at it_ now. 18:32:10 <nb> mattdm, yeah, but it is being "reallocated" or whatever you want to call it 18:32:19 <nb> so that the regions will get less than in previous years 18:32:22 <nb> unless i'm missing someting 18:33:44 <decause> nb: the 'big number' is the same, and we're looking moving some regional funding into centralized activity (FADs and Outreachy) 18:33:54 <nb> yeah 18:34:16 <cwickert1> decause: I'm confused now. I think we are discussing FY17, that is March 1st, 2016 – February 28th, 2017. Right? 18:34:29 <jwb> yes 18:34:49 <mattdm> but it's really hard to actually figure out how much that is vs previous planned and actual spending because we don't have a coherent, consistent record 18:35:04 <decause> cwickert1: yes 18:35:04 <mattdm> But here we are now, so let's make the best of it. 18:35:08 <cwickert1> decause: then why does an annual budget from January 1st – December 31st only impact August? 18:35:19 <mattdm> (i didn't understand that either) 18:35:49 <decause> cwickert1: the time when "proposed" budgets are effective, is August preceding the end of the fiscal year 18:36:03 <decause> if you look at the timeline 18:36:08 <langdon> i might be a little lost.. but august is when budget requests for the following year go in 18:36:15 <decause> langdon: yes 18:36:31 <mattdm> I think "effective" might be the wrong word 18:36:36 <decause> we, the council, then "ratify" the requested budget, and send it in 18:37:05 <decause> then we get back the "big number" from red hat, and do adjustments 18:37:19 <cwickert1> decause: I know it's too late to submit a proposal, and we missed the bus because the deadline is now earlier than it used to be. But I need to know if the regions can make it through this year or not 18:37:28 <langdon> which, IIRC, is supposed to be by OCT .. then the big number comes sometime jan-march 18:37:54 <decause> cwickert1: the deadline was OCT this year 18:37:57 <decause> AFAIK 18:38:00 <decause> it didn't change 18:38:24 * decause will double check a calendar to make sure 18:38:25 <decause> but 18:38:26 <mattdm> decause: it was definitely earlier than it had been 18:38:35 <langdon> well... oct, 2015 for FY17 (mar. 2016-feb. 2017) 18:38:57 <mattdm> cwickert1: so, what does "make it through" mean — and what would "not making it through" look like? 18:39:04 <cwickert1> decause: EMEA has been making it's budget FAD in December for a decade, so the deadline must have been after that 18:39:12 <decause> cwickert1: if the deadlines were kept, I wouldn't have empty rows in the repo now 18:39:16 <cwickert1> mattdm: If a region will be able to sustain the planned event 18:39:17 <decause> EMEA did their duty 18:39:18 <decause> yes 18:39:20 <decause> no questions 18:39:24 <cwickert1> s/event/events 18:39:34 <decause> that is the only region I have all numbers and delegates for 18:39:40 <langdon> i believe there wwas some hope of "early requests" == "earlier allocation" (read: before the fiscal starts).. first part happened but not the 2nd part 18:39:58 <mattdm> langdon yeah, which is *super* annoying, but not much we can do about it 18:40:00 <decause> cwickert1: there was no EMEA budget fad this year in the early year, it was held at DevConf 18:40:16 <cwickert1> decause: I know 18:40:31 <mattdm> and this year, Flock seems like the appropriate time and place for it 18:40:40 <cwickert1> decause: if you have all the numbers from EMEA, where can I find the budget they requested at DevConf? 18:40:49 <cwickert1> I don't see it in the spreadsheet 18:41:05 <decause> in the repo, in the famsco meeting notes, in the scenarios.txt (at the bottom) 18:41:08 <decause> lots of places 18:41:13 <mattdm> cwickert1: https://pagure.io/fedora-budget/blob/master/f/FY17/proposedannualbudgets/emea 18:41:46 <langdon> cwickert1, this spreadsheet is the "result" of all the "requests".. requests are in the "proposed" sub dir.. 18:41:52 <decause> cwickert1: it's not in the spreadsheet, because proposed budgets do not have an impact on the big number anymore 18:42:21 <langdon> decause, is that true? that doesn't make sense.. 18:42:27 <decause> we can add it, for "historical" purposes (it is good to know) but it does not, and will not, change the big number at this point 18:42:28 <langdon> do you mean for fy17? or in general? 18:42:39 <decause> langdon: for FY17 18:42:44 <langdon> right ok.. 18:43:08 <decause> for FY18, we need the Proposed budgets to show up shortly afer Flock, to be ratified by council in oct (according to the timeline) 18:43:11 <decause> again 18:43:18 <decause> we are spending lots of time on talking about the past here 18:43:21 <decause> which we all agree 18:43:21 <langdon> i would argue that the region requests should be on another tab and be displayed as info to the region proposed allocation 18:43:22 <decause> is not idea 18:43:32 <mattdm> okay, so, since we're 45 minutes in.... 18:43:48 <mattdm> langdon: +1 yes that'd be helpful 18:44:01 <langdon> if my spreadsheet-fu gets the better of me.. i will work it in .. :/ 18:44:07 <decause> langdon: I'm ok with that, it just does not affect the big number (which I need to continue making clear will not change this year) 18:44:21 <langdon> but.. it makes the "push to website" process somewhat harder 18:45:13 <decause> langdon: I'm manually pushing to budget.fp.o for now, but the budget repo will have a .yaml file with the totals from our spreadsheet that feed it (in an ideal world in __future__) 18:45:29 <langdon> decause, well... no .. of course not.. however, in theory, it did .. as in .. if all the requests had been in, mattdm could make a request for budget based on it, which would (in theory again) effect the big number.. which is why it is useful to have the data.. to show how the process should/will work 18:45:37 <mattdm> So, as we left the discussion last time, we had basically decided on one Outreachy intern only ("hDI"), and were debating between either half or full FAD set-aside 18:45:49 <mattdm> with cwickert1 wanting to see the total for the regional proposals before deciding tht 18:45:51 <mattdm> that 18:45:52 <decause> langdon: we didn't start this process until </FY16> 18:45:54 <mattdm> Is that accurate? 18:45:56 <decause> we're in the middle of it, yes 18:46:04 <decause> but we didn't want to change mid stream 18:46:14 <robyduck> mattdm: yes, right 18:46:53 <cwickert1> may I ask some more questions about the spreadsheet? 18:47:07 <robyduck> with full FAD we are very far away from proposed budgets 18:47:11 <mattdm> decause: did you ever get anything from APAC beyond https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAD_Singapore_2015/Events 18:47:42 <decause> mattdm: what I have /should/ be in the repo 18:47:48 <decause> after this year, we won't have to ask these questions again 18:47:53 * decause cannot wait 18:47:55 <cwickert1> B49:B61 are based on the historic percentages, right? 18:48:51 <mattdm> #info APAC proposed budget appears to be $33025 (from wiki) 18:49:18 <cwickert1> mattdm: keep in mind they have a tendency to overbudget / underspend 18:49:19 <mattdm> nb or decause — do we have any idea on the proposed bottom line for NA? 18:49:33 <mattdm> cwickert1: yes, and last year _significantly_ so (like, by a factor of 6) 18:49:43 <decause> mattdm: from waht I remember it was actually *higher* than last year 18:49:45 <robyduck> mattdm: not only last year 18:50:11 <mattdm> which, by the way, is _probably_ where the money is basically coming from to make things work out for the other regions 18:50:30 <mattdm> This is one of the reasons we want to have a quarterly checkin on actual spending 18:50:44 <decause> there is going to be growing pains all 18:50:48 <mattdm> that way, we can keep track of that kind of thing in the open 18:51:10 <decause> we need to keep track of what we "would have done" if we had the budget 18:51:16 <cwickert1> mattdm: but the historic percentages take this massive underspending into account, right? 18:51:28 <decause> so that when the proposed budgets come up in August, we can say "this is what we'd spend" 18:51:33 <decause> and along with event reports and metrics 18:51:45 <decause> can say "and this is what we think that impact would be from said spend" 18:51:55 <decause> based on other simliar spends 18:53:34 * nb thinks it would be nice if we could have budget planning at Flock 18:53:37 <decause> I think that investing more in FADs and D&I this year is a good idea. The only way things don't change for regional funding is if we don't change how we're spending 18:53:45 <decause> nb: yes, I've proposed it as a workshop already 18:53:47 <nb> but that might include finding some funding for key ambassadors who aren't speakers to attend Flock 18:53:52 <mattdm> cwickert1: not the ones I gave; those were just based on ruth's allocation numbers 18:54:22 <cwickert1> one more source of error I'm afraid 18:54:43 <decause> R/4 is a hypothetical scenario where we just split the regional funding 4 ways, btw 18:55:03 <decause> R*HS is the one we should be most concerned with 18:55:23 <decause> and pointing out the lack of data, or problems in the spreadsheet *still* does not change the big number 18:55:28 <mattdm> cwickert1: yeah, I didn't go any further there because I'm really more concerned with maximizing impact worldwide than with matching what we've done previously 18:55:34 <decause> I *really* urge you all, we need to make a call here 18:56:15 <decause> 1) do we spend 15K, or 30K on FADs 18:56:32 <decause> 2) Do we spend 0, 6500, or 13000 on Outreachy 18:56:41 <decause> those are the two questions 18:56:54 <decause> the rest is a matter of making sure that in one year, we do not have to do this again 18:56:57 <decause> and guess 18:57:00 <decause> because the process is in place 18:57:09 <decause> and we're going to follow it 18:57:13 * decause crosses fingers 18:57:23 <cwickert1> decause: I find it hard to make a call if I don't know the impact. I'm here to represent FAmSCo, means the ones to spend the regional budget. and if I don't know what impact it has on the regional budget, I find it hard to decide. 18:57:37 <decause> cwickert1: stop. it doesn't change those questions. 18:57:39 <decause> pick one 18:58:03 <cwickert1> I think you are asking the wrong questions actually. 18:58:06 <decause> the impact will be a reduction in that many dollars across the board, split in the ways we've shown in the sheet 18:58:18 <decause> it has nothing to do with with what we'd like to see, or what we would liek to request 18:58:23 <decause> we're past that point in the process 18:58:24 <mattdm> cwickert1: well, the basic difference is a total of $80k, $73.5k, or $67k allocated across regions. 18:58:29 <decause> mattdm: thank you 18:58:46 <nb> decause, do you have any sort of metrics about the impact our participation in outreachy in the past has made 18:59:02 <jwb> we've never done it at this level, so no 18:59:02 <decause> nb: glad you asked 18:59:37 <decause> #link https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/women-in-computing-and-fedora/ 18:59:47 <decause> I've been working with the commops team to generate impact metrics 18:59:50 <decause> we have some 19:00:14 <decause> but we're working it out 19:00:20 <cwickert1> Correct me if I'm wrong, but we already agreed we want at least some outreachy, right? 19:00:22 <decause> it was part of the GSoC proposal that just got accepted 19:00:31 <cwickert1> means at least hDI 19:01:07 <mattdm> cwickert1: yes, I think we were all in agreement there. I do like being clear about the past success we've had, though, because it goes to my whole point about needing to document impact 19:01:09 <mattdm> cwickert1: what are the questions you would ask? 19:01:16 <decause> nb: we have the data to say "query datagrepper for the $OUTREACHY_FAS_ACCOUNTS" 19:01:57 <decause> cwickert1: I'm happy to talk *at length* about these metrics, as we have been in the IRC channel, and the issues/commits in the fedora-stats-tools repo 19:02:08 <decause> we've got some theories 19:02:09 <decause> but again 19:02:13 <cwickert1> mattdm: the question I would ask is: "Will the regions be able to sustain their regional events with the money left after FADs and DI?" 19:02:50 <cwickert1> decause: fedora-stats-tools? 19:03:00 <decause> http://github.com/feodra-infra/fedora-stats-tools 19:03:05 <decause> #link http://github.com/feodra-infra/fedora-stats-tools 19:03:21 <nb> decause, i think you mean http://github.com/fedora-infra/fedora-stats-tools 19:03:27 <decause> there are a variety of tools there, but we're working out fedmsg metrics for events, with a PoC for FOSDEM 19:03:30 * decause digs fo rlink 19:03:44 <decause> nb: yeah, typo 19:04:25 <decause> #link https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fosdem-2016-event-report/ 19:04:35 <decause> at the bottom, there is one graph (of many generated) for 19:04:58 <mattdm> cwickert1: The requested regional budgets (assuming around $40k for NA; I think it might be even more) total $130k 19:05:06 <decause> measuring action and impact v1.0 19:05:20 <robyduck> we could save some money for Regions by cutting a fullFAD and hDI by let's say 15-20%, this would help regions and also keep enough money for FADs and outreachy, or? 19:05:24 <cwickert1> decause: I don't think we ever discussed this and I don't think we need to now. I'm not focused on metrics so much. I think metrics are only an indicator but not a justification, but that's a different story 19:05:27 <robyduck> is this out of discussion? 19:05:42 <cwickert1> robyduck: good idea 19:05:59 <mattdm> the difference between the theoretical and the reality is so far off that it's hard to square 19:06:07 <decause> robyduck: we have to "knobs" to turn here 19:06:09 <decause> outreachy 19:06:12 <decause> and FADs 19:06:30 <decause> I don't know where 15-20% cut comes from 19:06:39 <decause> unless from regional budgets 19:06:46 <decause> s/to/two 19:06:52 <mattdm> even with NO FADs and *no* Outreachy, that request exceeds available money 19:07:11 <robyduck> decause: it's an idea, I feel 6500 for outreachy is still much, and maybe 30k too 19:07:22 <mattdm> So, regions are really going to need to focus on the events that make the biggest splash for fewest dollars 19:07:28 <cwickert1> mattdm: I know the requested budget is always to high. But even if I look at the money we actually spent in 2015, hF/hDI is the only option left. For EMEA it's even below what we've spent. 19:07:32 <decause> 6500 is the *hard* limit. That is 100% student Stipend + Admin cost 19:07:41 <decause> it's not a number we pick 19:07:43 <robyduck> mattdm: that's for sure the priority fot regions this year 19:08:28 <mattdm> So, going back to something I suggested a few weeks ago: I'm okay with hF/hDI, and assuming that we'll have some money for potential future FADs out of regional underspend 19:08:37 <decause> if we want to lower the max budget on FADs, then that is the same thing as reducing the total amount of funds for FADs. it's the same knob. 19:08:40 <nb> mattdm++ 19:09:12 <decause> I'm still +1 on hF/hDI also 19:09:30 <jkurik> my vote is: 15K on FADs, 6500 on Outreachy - (hF/hDI scenario) 19:09:38 <mattdm> is anyone currently -1 to that? 19:09:50 <cwickert1> +1, but not really happy about it 19:09:51 <nb> how will regional budget be divided? 19:09:56 <nb> historical? 19:09:57 <mattdm> nb: that's next up 19:09:58 <decause> nb: we're not there yet 19:09:59 <robyduck> no, me is +1 for hF/hDi 19:10:01 <nb> oh ok 19:10:10 * cwickert1 admits it's hard to make him happy 19:10:13 <decause> :) 19:10:14 <mattdm> cwickert1: :) 19:10:15 <nb> :) 19:10:18 <decause> cwickert1++ 19:10:38 <jwb> i'm for hF/hDI 19:10:47 <cwickert1> ok, anybody disagrees? 19:10:54 <cwickert1> afaics nobody 19:11:02 <cwickert1> robyduck: what about you? 19:11:10 <cwickert1> oh, you already voted 19:11:18 <robyduck> cwickert1: I already said 19:11:25 <mattdm> yeah, and it is my understanding that tatica is also okay with this 19:11:33 <robyduck> so, we are all for half FAD and half Di apparently 19:11:40 <decause> \o/ 19:11:47 <mattdm> #agreed we're going to go with the "half FAD / half DI" scenario 19:11:58 <mattdm> okay, so for the _regional_ allocation question :) 19:11:58 <decause> \o/\o/\o/ 19:12:17 <mattdm> I think we need to have the APAC and NA numbers before we can go on 19:12:26 <jwb> yes 19:12:27 <mattdm> also it's 12 minutes over already now 19:12:41 <decause> that scenario represents a 23% cut across the board (from what I've calculated) 19:12:56 <mattdm> can we... set a deadline for that? 19:12:59 <decause> if we want to reduce some pain from some places, we inflict it in others 19:13:12 <decause> that is my take on things 19:13:29 <mattdm> decause: yeah. it's pain all around, unfortunately. 19:13:34 <decause> I'm going ot support the council, and will crunch what numbers you'd like me to (with help, thanks langdon) and will keep hounding for data 19:14:00 <decause> but, I've been asking for said numbers for over a month now 19:14:03 <decause> maybe months 19:14:09 <jkurik> decause: tough job, right :) thanks for it 19:14:34 <decause> if they didn't come in before, I don't know what is going to change it now, and if you have suggestions, I'm all ears :) 19:14:45 <jkurik> decause++ 19:14:55 <decause> I have future reimbursements to help with future numbers 19:15:00 <mattdm> soooo, priority goes to regions who have numbers in, in a useful format, totalled up, and with links to justification for each line item? 19:15:32 <nb> mattdm, what do you mean by justification? 19:15:45 <nb> decause, and I can't find what you said award sent you in the repo 19:16:13 <nb> as in links to reports from the same event in the past? 19:16:22 <jwb> mattdm: yes 19:16:23 <decause> mattdm: I'm ok with that mostly, but because I've become familiar with the individual ambassador scenarios in many regions, I have some reservations about making the preferance *too* steep 19:16:24 <mattdm> nb: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/LATAM/Budget:2017 19:16:34 <mattdm> a one-liner explaining the goal 19:16:43 <decause> mattdm: the EMEA sheet is best 19:16:48 <decause> nm 19:17:15 <mattdm> I'd love even _more_ but I understand it's a) new and b) considerable effort 19:17:17 <decause> APAc has a really good spreadsheet in the repo 19:17:22 * nb thinks pretty much all of the goal is "Grow Fedora" 19:17:37 <decause> mattdm: this is why we now have a 'storyteller' delegate (and commops team!) to help make sure those come in 19:17:40 * nb will try to find some time to make a prettier list for NA 19:17:51 <nb> but would like to know where to find the info that decause said andrew sent him 19:17:53 <mattdm> nb yeah, it'd be _ideal_ for it to be more specific than that 19:18:22 <mattdm> as in "grow fedora _in this way_ by _doing this thing_" 19:19:14 <decause> nb: it /should/ be in the repo, but you should talk to award about getting those into the repo too 19:19:20 <langdon> btw.. diffs are now in the spreadsheet if you repull... at least for emea and latam 19:19:28 <mattdm> langdon++ 19:19:29 <decause> langdon: ty 19:19:42 <nb> decause, yeah, i can't find it in the repo 19:19:43 <mattdm> okay, anyone else have anything? I'm starting to get a little meeting fatigued 19:19:53 * nb guesses he will email award, unless decause can add it to the repo? 19:19:57 <decause> nb: yeah, the documents I got from award are mostly *estimated* 19:20:01 <decause> aka, no reports 19:20:08 <decause> which is better than nothing 19:20:09 <mattdm> thanks nb 19:20:09 * decause digs 19:20:29 <mattdm> and thanks everyone else too -- we'll get through this :) 19:20:41 <nb> decause, estimated request or estimated historical spend? 19:20:55 <mattdm> fwiw, we made Linux Weekly News with this topic 19:21:10 <langdon> mattdm, link? 19:21:18 <mattdm> #link https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/685243/daa0a9359d2c21a5/ 19:21:36 <decause> nb: historical spend 19:22:10 <mattdm> nb, decause -- you guys good for #endmeeting? 19:22:44 * decause is going to be in #fedora-council for anyone who wants to keep discussing this 19:22:53 <nb> ok 19:23:05 <decause> thanks mattdm for chairing 19:23:07 <mattdm> sounds good. see you all over there 19:23:10 <mattdm> #endmeeting