17:00:58 <cwickert> #startmeeting FAmSCO 2012-07-09
17:00:58 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jul  9 17:00:58 2012 UTC.  The chair is cwickert. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:58 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:05 <cwickert> #meetingname famsco
17:01:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
17:01:29 <aeperezt> .fas aeperezt
17:01:29 <zodbot> aeperezt: aeperezt 'Alejandro Perez' <alejandro.perez.torres@gmail.com>
17:01:44 * aeperezt helo everyone
17:01:45 <danielbruno> .fas dbruno
17:01:45 <zodbot> danielbruno: dbruno 'Daniel Bruno' <danielbrunos@gmail.com>
17:01:52 <cwickert> #topic Roll Call
17:01:56 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
17:01:56 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@googlemail.com>
17:02:53 <bckurera> .fas bckurera
17:02:53 <zodbot> bckurera: bckurera 'Buddhika Kurera' <bckurera@gmail.com>
17:05:20 * cwickert counts 5 people
17:05:31 <cwickert> no, 4
17:06:51 <aeperezt> cwickert, what is the quorum minimal 4 or 5
17:07:05 <cwickert> don't know
17:07:16 <cwickert> I am not sure even have something like this
17:08:32 <bckurera> anyway shall we move?
17:08:37 <aeperezt> cwickert, o then I'm not sure why I got that idea that we need  a number of famsco members for the meeting
17:08:59 <aeperezt> so lets move on
17:10:00 <bckurera> We have the majority here, isnt that enough? :)
17:10:40 <aeperezt> think so, maybe we can review tickets on https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/report/9
17:10:40 <danielbruno> I think so
17:10:55 <aeperezt> if there is something we can add or change on any of them
17:11:16 <aeperezt> but I guess the one we need to tal about is 265
17:11:28 <cwickert> #info aeperezt, bckurera, cwickert, danielbruno present, sesivany is traveling, no news from herlo and nb
17:11:34 <cwickert> sorry, I got distracted
17:11:34 <aeperezt> with bckurera page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bckurera/Draft_Sponsoring_event_attendees
17:11:41 <cwickert> lets move on
17:11:49 <cwickert> #topic Announcements
17:11:53 <cwickert> any announcements?
17:11:54 <aeperezt> and fpl notes on the matter
17:12:42 <cwickert> no announcements?
17:12:51 <cwickert> ok, then lets move on with tickets
17:13:34 <bckurera> aeperezt : lets discuss it at the topic, ticket #265
17:13:55 <cwickert> ok, lets do #265 then
17:14:03 <cwickert> #topic Sponsoring event attendees
17:14:07 <cwickert> .famsco 265
17:14:07 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/265
17:14:30 <cwickert> bckurera: when you make a draft, you should update the ticket
17:14:50 <cwickert> this being said, thanks for your work, but I don't think your draft really works
17:15:12 <bckurera> ohh couldnt update the ticket, but I forwarded the link to the mailing list
17:15:31 <cwickert> should we go through it by bullet points or should we use rbergero's mail?
17:15:56 <bckurera> there is a long mail from FPL as well
17:16:18 <cwickert> bckurera: oh, I see, trac is not yet updated, it still has the old FAmSCo members
17:16:23 <cwickert> hold on...
17:17:23 <bckurera> the focus is FUDcon, I got the idea from noted links and prepared a draft
17:17:45 <bckurera> we can change/add it, till it looks fine
17:18:36 <aeperezt> bckurera, think it should mention that it focus on fudcon only will not affect request to other events
17:18:57 <cwickert> ok, updated
17:19:36 <cwickert> #info trac updated, all FAmSCo members now have full trac access
17:20:17 <cwickert> I think the problem with the draft is that it focuses on FUDCon and that it does not include the old policy
17:20:31 <bckurera> aeperezt : I dont think there is special need for other events, if anyone need funds for any other event FAmSCo can discuss it
17:21:30 <cwickert> again, my question is: how do we move on?
17:21:36 <cwickert> suggestions?
17:21:36 <aeperezt> bckurera, right but it need to mention it on the track and on the draft doc so it does not get confused
17:22:16 <cwickert> hello?
17:22:24 <bckurera> aeperezt : ok then will add it :)
17:22:42 <bckurera> cwickert : you mean the draft?
17:22:54 <aeperezt> bckurera, :-)
17:22:56 <cwickert> no, I mean: How do we move on???
17:23:15 <bckurera> cwickert : you mean the meeting?
17:23:17 <aeperezt> lets go to the fpl points
17:23:23 <cwickert> yes
17:23:37 <cwickert> that was meant for bckurera
17:24:19 <cwickert> danielbruno: ?
17:25:31 * nb here
17:25:32 <nb> sorry
17:25:40 <aeperezt> bckurera, many points from the openSUSE page will not be valid now if we just close it to fudcon
17:25:42 <danielbruno> sorry guys, i had to answer an important call.
17:25:47 * danielbruno is back
17:25:55 <cwickert> ok, can we please move on?
17:26:00 <danielbruno> yes
17:26:07 <danielbruno> lets move on
17:26:19 <aeperezt> and some of those are what got response by Rbergeron
17:26:26 <aeperezt> or comments
17:26:45 <cwickert> my question was: how should we move on with this ticket?
17:27:03 <cwickert> I made 2 proposals, only one aeperezt answered
17:27:08 <bckurera> being frank I dont get time to read the email, it was sent today evening
17:28:08 <bckurera> ok fedora moving on shall we understand the need of such proposal?
17:28:14 <aeperezt> bckurera, ok then lets stop here so everyone can review and propose the changes on the ticket, considering that is only fudcon and not all event
17:28:24 <cwickert> hold on
17:28:51 <cwickert> can we please answer one question first? for over 10 minutes everybody is just talking but not answering my question
17:29:12 <cwickert> given that not everybody read rbergero's mail I suggest that we all have a look at bckurera's draft first
17:30:23 <aeperezt> cwickert, ok
17:30:49 <cwickert> the others?
17:30:57 <bckurera> one thing we need to clarify, does this required to cover all the requests?
17:31:06 <cwickert> ok, I am done
17:31:17 <cwickert> who will lead the meeting?
17:32:02 <cwickert> sorry, but I feel we are not getting anywhere with this
17:32:19 <cwickert> we are talking for half an hour and we have not even agree how we should discuss
17:32:30 <cwickert> instead everybody is just talking random stuff
17:32:42 <cwickert> and others don't seem to be present at all
17:32:49 <cwickert> so who is still here?
17:33:04 <bckurera> cwickert got it :)
17:33:17 <aeperezt> cwickert, here
17:33:39 <danielbruno> cwickert, im here
17:33:39 <cwickert> danielbruno, nb: still there?
17:33:43 <aeperezt> cwickert, looks like only bckurera you and I
17:34:13 <danielbruno> aeperezt, me too :)
17:34:32 <nb> yes
17:34:39 <cwickert> ok, has everybody read the draft?
17:34:48 <nb> yes
17:35:01 <danielbruno> yes
17:35:04 <aeperezt> yes
17:35:07 <cwickert> ok
17:35:12 <danielbruno> but i'm reading the rbergeron mail
17:35:24 <bckurera> Me too reading it is long
17:35:30 <cwickert> guys
17:35:50 <cwickert> can we please all pay attention to this meeting and not read any mails?
17:35:59 <bckurera> cwickert : ok done
17:36:00 <danielbruno> sure
17:36:13 <cwickert> I thought we agreed on going through the draft and not discussing rbergero's mail
17:36:30 <bckurera> +1
17:37:16 <cwickert> any questions about the draft before we start?
17:37:16 <aeperezt> +1
17:38:01 <cwickert> no questions, awesome
17:38:17 <cwickert> lets go through the bullet points
17:38:28 <cwickert> I think the draft lacks an introduction
17:38:31 <aeperezt> only sugestion I have was to specify that is only for Fudcon
17:38:43 <aeperezt> but nice work bckurera by the way
17:38:44 <cwickert> it should not be
17:39:00 <cwickert> ok, maybe we need to go one step back
17:39:00 <bckurera> thanks
17:39:14 <cwickert> the ticket was about "sponsoring event attendees"
17:39:25 <cwickert> not about FUDCon attendees
17:39:36 <cwickert> so we need to work on something generic and not specific
17:39:49 <cwickert> we want to improve http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees
17:40:03 <cwickert> this means we need to incorporate the old and the new suggestions
17:40:10 <cwickert> or am I wrong?
17:40:22 <danielbruno> so, for something generic
17:40:31 <danielbruno> it need to change somepoints
17:40:36 <danielbruno> about the committee
17:40:43 <bckurera> you right
17:40:49 <bckurera> yes but for general fund requests to attend a event, we can discuss in FAmSCo
17:41:20 <cwickert> I don't think we really want that
17:41:29 <danielbruno> maybe it can be have a condition whe the event is a fudcon or not
17:41:36 <nb> they should be discussed in regional meetings
17:41:41 <cwickert> we want to move more budget decisions away from FAmSCo and we want event owners to decide
17:41:55 <danielbruno> +1
17:41:56 <cwickert> the event owners know better about the event than FAmSCo
17:41:56 <bckurera> having a separate committee is not required if it is an ordinary request asking fund
17:42:10 <danielbruno> cwickert, i think the same
17:42:41 <cwickert> bckurera: we are not trying to reinvent the wheel, we want to improve the current process
17:42:59 <aeperezt> well if it is more generic I don't think all events should have a committee
17:43:17 <cwickert> ok, who will lead this meeting?
17:43:19 * nb suggests leaving it up to the regions
17:43:59 <cwickert> nb: we are talking about things that go through the tracker, premier Fedora events
17:44:12 <cwickert> which are usually bigger than the regions
17:44:42 <cwickert> ok, again, I ask somebody to take over leadership of this meeting
17:44:59 <cwickert> it seems I am not leading this discussion well because we are no getting anywhere
17:45:13 <cwickert> so if anybody would take over, I appreciate it
17:46:40 <cwickert> who was vice chair? danielbruno?
17:46:51 <danielbruno> cwickert, yes, i am
17:47:00 <cwickert> ok, please chair this meeting
17:47:12 <cwickert> #chair danielbruno nb aeperezt bckurera cwickert
17:47:12 <zodbot> Current chairs: aeperezt bckurera cwickert danielbruno nb
17:47:37 <danielbruno> ok.. move on
17:48:58 <danielbruno> I think that we need to do a merge with the old model
17:49:18 <danielbruno> with the new suggetions
17:49:57 <cwickert> !
17:50:05 <danielbruno> -> cwickert,
17:50:43 <cwickert> I think we should start with the old page and not change too much. we should go through the list and think carefully what to add.
17:50:49 <danielbruno> just as we are, I believe that there is no need of formality to ask to speak
17:51:04 <cwickert> this being said I don't think that bckurera's draft is really helpful, it is just too much
17:51:07 <cwickert> EOF
17:51:41 <danielbruno> the old page is a good start point
17:51:51 <bckurera> ok then do we need a new committee or body?
17:52:19 <cwickert> bckurera: we don't really need a new committee, all the big events already have theirs
17:52:20 <danielbruno> I think that all of us have experience in events in general
17:52:38 <danielbruno> to propose improvements
17:53:39 <danielbruno> improve what already exists is more efficient than making a new
17:53:58 * nb wonders what we are trying to solve abou the current process
17:53:58 <bckurera> cwickert : yes but we need something "a defined entity"
17:54:10 <nb> the new draft by bckurera seems really restrictive
17:54:38 <cwickert> nb: what we are trying to fix is that we currently use "first come, first serve"
17:54:44 <bckurera> in that case we can substitute committee with the organizing team, but they need to follow the guideline?
17:54:54 <cwickert> what guideline?
17:55:15 <cwickert> we are not trying to change *who* decides but *how* they decide
17:55:16 <bckurera> how to serve requests, not first come first serve
17:55:40 <cwickert> therefor I suggest we remove all the formal requirements about the committee
17:56:19 <cwickert> I think we should base our improvements on the assumption that there already is some kind of committee for the events
17:56:29 <bckurera> I m fine with it, will remove the committee, and refine how decision is made
17:56:31 <danielbruno> the people almost always are the same, usually the changes is the way things are done
17:57:02 <cwickert> so lets just make it "the event organziers" instead of "the committee"
17:57:18 <danielbruno> sounds good
17:57:23 <bckurera> cwickert : got it, I ll refine it
17:57:49 <cwickert> the FPL just doesn't have enough time to be head of yet another committee
17:58:55 * cwickert has more ideas but wants to hear the others first
17:59:48 <danielbruno> so, bckurera will work on his draft or we'll work to improve the old page?
18:00:30 <cwickert> I think we should not change the old page until we have something better, but we sould carefully think what to change
18:01:05 <bckurera> danielbruno : Will remove the idea of the committee, but we need to decide *how* it is done
18:01:11 <cwickert> +1
18:01:31 <cwickert> for me the most important parts are the ranking and the deadlines
18:01:33 <nb> i think the rest of it sounds ok
18:01:39 <danielbruno> +1
18:01:40 * aeperezt I think that inode0 intention on the ticket was for fudcon only
18:01:48 <nb> although i almost think there should be a little bit of priority to people who ask earlier
18:02:03 <nb> and requests should not have to wait until the final deadline to find out of they are approved
18:02:09 <nb> i.e. how we have multiple subsidy meetings currently
18:03:48 <cwickert> I could think of 2 rounds, but doing subsidy meetings very week will lead to first come, first served
18:04:01 <cwickert> well, we could continue doing them every week
18:04:12 <cwickert> but only approve the people that have rank 1
18:04:26 <cwickert> and whoever is average or below needs to wait
18:04:30 <bckurera> 2 rounds will be enough, if there is any funding left at the end of the 1st one
18:04:33 <cwickert> because we want a fair decision for them
18:05:02 <danielbruno> it's a good approach
18:05:27 <bckurera> Will narrow down the time line and then 1st subsidy meeting
18:06:54 <cwickert> I am not sure if we should set deadlines in the document, the event owners should set them
18:06:55 <danielbruno> someone else?
18:07:26 <cwickert> what about the ranks? do we really need 5?
18:07:35 * cwickert thinks 3 are enough
18:07:44 <bckurera> will set 2 week, all interested parties should apply with in 2 weeks, then 3rd week subsidy meeting will be held
18:08:13 <cwickert> bckurera: but this may differ from event to event. they have different deadlines for hotel, flights etc
18:08:34 <danielbruno> about the deadlines, I think we should suggest how it should be done, but it's not mandatory because the situation change in each event
18:08:44 <cwickert> danielbruno: +1
18:09:20 <cwickert> think of FUDCON APAC where we only had very little time. on the other hand we are already planing for FUDCon EMEA now even if it is 4 months away
18:09:31 <cwickert> so deadlines should be up to the even owners
18:10:06 <cwickert> and I think the number of meetings should be up to them, too
18:10:42 <bckurera> cwickert : I dont agree with it, we need to set a minimum period, letting others to have enough time to apply
18:10:42 <cwickert> they can have as many meetings as they like and approve requests ASAP, as long as they make sure the rest is treated fair and equally
18:11:20 <nb> cwickert, +1
18:11:40 <cwickert> bckurera: of course, we can say the time frame should at least be X weeks
18:11:59 <bckurera> good, that is what I mean
18:12:23 <cwickert> if we say 4 weeks, and they are doing meetings every week; I think they can approve people already in the first week
18:12:26 <danielbruno> I dont think we should determine time because not all events have the same proportion
18:12:28 <aeperezt> cwickert, +1
18:12:31 <cwickert> but only if they are really ranked 1
18:12:48 <cwickert> and all the others who are 2 or three need to be discussed later
18:13:02 <cwickert> the last meeting is the important one
18:14:04 <bckurera> but again my concern is rank 1 is relative
18:14:28 <cwickert> it should not be
18:15:01 <cwickert> rank 1 is "This person needs to be at the FUDCon to make it happen or because he/she is very important otherwise"
18:15:43 <danielbruno> cwickert, +1
18:15:56 <cwickert> should we discuss this on the mailing list?
18:16:07 <bckurera> strong yes
18:16:16 <cwickert> this meeting is taking very long and I think it does not make much sense to discuss details
18:16:31 <cwickert> I would rather like to think about the general approach
18:16:37 * aeperezt I'm sorry are we talking about general events or fudcon events, the two of them are completly different events and issues
18:16:52 <cwickert> and it seems we already agree on this ever much
18:17:02 <danielbruno> we need to make a proposal to generic events
18:17:14 <cwickert> aeperezt: we are talking about those events where we have more people applying for sponsorship than we can crant
18:17:16 <cwickert> grant
18:17:19 <danielbruno> we're forgotting our focus
18:17:25 <danielbruno> thinking on fudcons
18:17:42 <cwickert> well, I think for normal events it works quite well already
18:18:05 <cwickert> we don't have so many people who apply and we just grant sponsoring, right?
18:18:51 <cwickert> if we just grant it anyway, we don't need a committee, the regional meetings or FAmSCo can decide
18:18:53 <bckurera> If and only if it is important, suck matters will be handled by regional communities or FAmSCo
18:18:57 <aeperezt> if we are not talking about fudcon then it should be as simple as its, the two events were we have more people than budget are FADs and Fudcon
18:19:11 <bckurera> s/suck/such
18:19:25 <cwickert> aeperezt: right, any some other big events, but usually that does not happen
18:19:32 <cwickert> s/any/and
18:19:39 <aeperezt> were bckurera doc fits better than general events
18:20:26 <danielbruno> guys, i think that we need to think better about and move the discuss to the mail list
18:20:30 <cwickert> +1
18:20:35 <aeperezt> basically the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees page works fine for all other request except fad and fudcons
18:20:50 <cwickert> aeperezt: amen!
18:20:57 <aeperezt> so I think we should work on those tow
18:21:00 <aeperezt> *two
18:21:01 <bckurera> yes will move this to mailing list, it is almost 1.5 hr here
18:21:10 <cwickert> yes, I need to leave now
18:21:14 <danielbruno> yes, the time is running
18:21:19 <danielbruno> me too
18:21:20 <cwickert> can we have a few quick questions though?
18:21:57 <danielbruno> sure
18:22:10 <bckurera> I m fine with it, quick and fast :)
18:22:13 <cwickert> bckurera: what do you mean with "Blog about being sponsored. Please use one of the badges in your blog post"
18:22:15 <cwickert> ?
18:22:24 <cwickert> what badge?
18:22:32 <nb> what about those of us who don't want a blog?
18:22:38 * nb currenty just sends a report to the amb list
18:22:44 <bckurera> it is extract from open SUSE
18:22:48 <cwickert> nb: there is a requirement
18:23:04 <bckurera> but what I was thinking is I m going FUDcon badges :)
18:23:16 <nb> there is not currently a requirement AFAIK
18:23:17 <cwickert> nb: for the record: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Event_reports
18:23:36 <nb> hmm ok maybe there is
18:23:38 * nb reads
18:23:47 <cwickert> I think one event report should be mandatory
18:23:56 <cwickert> because the finance guys really need it
18:24:08 <cwickert> but I agree that daily blogging can become too much
18:24:11 <nb> cwickert, I do make a report
18:24:16 <nb> cwickert, i email it to the amb list
18:24:25 <nb> i just don't have a blog, and don't want one
18:24:36 <danielbruno> cwickert, +1 about the event report
18:24:39 <cwickert> it should be linked in the ticket, but that's a detail
18:24:55 <cwickert> back to my question
18:24:55 <bckurera> you can use your existing blog, no need to have a separate one for that
18:25:04 <nb> bckurera, i don't have a blog, and don't want one
18:25:09 <nb> that was my point
18:25:13 <danielbruno> the report daily report is optional, but it's a good thing to do
18:25:18 <cwickert> lets not discuss event report, seems we all agree
18:25:20 * nb sends his event report to the ambassadors list via email
18:25:46 <cwickert> I think we should remove the badge thing because we don't have badges
18:25:53 <aeperezt> cwickert, I know that daily blogs can be a heavy load but it is a way to talk about the event on the web so think we keep it maybe not daily
18:25:54 <cwickert> and we should remove the blogging requirement
18:26:12 <cwickert> I mean, not blogging about the event but that you were sponsored
18:26:36 <nb> cwickert, can we change it to "make an event report" not necessarily a blog
18:26:57 <cwickert> I am not talking about event reports *themeselves*
18:27:04 <danielbruno> +1
18:27:07 <cwickert> it seems in OpenSUSE you need to write blog "Hey, I was sponsored" - and this is a bad idea
18:27:16 <cwickert> because it will just make people jealous
18:27:21 <nb> cwickert, i agree
18:27:29 <cwickert> ok, so we remove this and the badge
18:27:42 <cwickert> but we agree that we should have some kind of event reports
18:27:47 <cwickert> what about the ranks then?
18:27:50 <cwickert> do we really need 5?
18:28:20 <bckurera> I think with 5 we have wide range to make up the decision, that is the reason behind for 5
18:28:22 <nb> yes, some kind of event reports
18:28:36 <nb> we could suggest 5, the event owners could choose to only use 3 if they want
18:28:41 <danielbruno> the open suse format can be a model, it's not necessary is how we should to do
18:28:42 <bckurera> if there is 3, it is yes, no, neutral
18:28:59 <cwickert> bckurera: +1
18:29:20 <cwickert> but this can still be discussed later, maybe 4 or 5 make sense
18:29:31 <cwickert> what about " Be available to educate or mentor other people who want to get  involved with the Fedora Project, help with any Fedora activities, e.g.  booth duty. "
18:29:41 <cwickert> I think we should drop this requirement, too
18:29:50 <cwickert> because it is very specific for FAms
18:30:13 <aeperezt> brb
18:30:31 <cwickert> so you have a FUDCon and they want to make an ARM hackest there. Do we require pbrobinson or jmasters to mentor people or write good code?
18:30:35 * aeperezt have to leave, took more that expected.
18:30:43 * aeperezt will read logs
18:31:50 <cwickert> nobody?
18:32:07 <nb> cwickert, +1 to dropping that requirement
18:32:12 <cwickert> if nobody has an opinion on this, we should move it to the list
18:32:13 <danielbruno> cwickert, +1
18:32:16 <cwickert> ok
18:32:24 <cwickert> the rest of the requirements looks goo
18:32:27 <cwickert> good
18:32:34 <cwickert> what about food?
18:32:47 <danielbruno> i suggest to move to the list
18:32:50 <cwickert> ok
18:32:58 <danielbruno> we dont have time enough anymore
18:33:03 <bckurera> most of the time it is provided by the organizers
18:33:04 <cwickert> you are the leader, you can decide :)
18:33:34 <bckurera> yes will move to the ML +1
18:33:39 <cwickert> +1
18:34:11 <danielbruno> lets finish the meeting
18:35:11 <danielbruno> #action move the discussion about the "Sponsoring event attendees" ticket #265 to the list
18:35:27 <danielbruno> #endmeeting