17:00:02 <sesivany> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2013-06-24
17:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jun 24 17:00:02 2013 UTC.  The chair is sesivany. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:09 <sesivany> #meetingname famsco
17:00:09 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
17:00:15 <sesivany> #topic Roll call
17:00:20 <tuanta> .fas tuanta
17:00:20 <sesivany> .fas eischmann
17:00:21 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
17:00:24 <zodbot> sesivany: eischmann 'Jiri Eischmann' <eischmann@redhat.com>
17:01:14 <sesivany> aeperezt will join us a bit later.
17:02:36 <tuanta> cool
17:02:42 <tuanta> hi cwickert
17:02:50 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
17:02:51 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@googlemail.com>
17:03:02 <cwickert> thanks for pinging me, sesivany
17:03:11 <sesivany> ok, great, when aeperezt joins us, we've got the quorum.
17:03:45 <sesivany> it's probably the last meeting of FAmSCo in this term, right?
17:03:51 * LoKoMurdoK I must be at the meeting or should I wait some notice, mail?
17:05:06 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: what do you mean? as a new famsco member?
17:05:35 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: yes
17:05:53 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: you'll be notified.
17:06:05 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: ok thanks!
17:06:11 <sesivany> the results are still not officially out AFAIK
17:06:33 <sesivany> so for today's meeting and maybe for the next one, it's still FAmSCo with old members.
17:06:43 <tuanta> we have got results? :)
17:07:26 <cwickert> voting period ended yesterday
17:07:32 <aeperezt> .fas aeperezt
17:07:32 <zodbot> aeperezt: aeperezt 'Alejandro Perez' <alejandro.perez.torres@gmail.com>
17:08:15 <sesivany> tuanta: "Meep, We are sorry, the results for this election cannot be viewed because they are currently embargoed pending formal announcement."
17:08:38 <aeperezt> helo
17:08:44 <tuanta> I guess that too :)
17:08:46 <aeperezt> I'm  back
17:08:50 <sesivany> aeperezt: hi
17:09:17 <sesivany> ok, let's get started...
17:09:28 <sesivany> I'd like to discuss the budget a bit again...
17:09:40 <sesivany> #topic FY14 budget status
17:10:06 <sesivany> cwickert: I worked on closing Q1 in EMEA budget on Fri.
17:10:22 <sesivany> cwickert: I'm missing just two invoices and it's closed.
17:10:30 <cwickert> I'm afraid the numbers for CLT are not accurate
17:10:42 <cwickert> what invoice do you miss?
17:10:47 <cwickert> anything I have to do with?
17:11:12 <sesivany> cwickert: Benedikt for LinuxTag and Solutions Linux.
17:11:44 <cwickert> sesivany: benedikt wasn't at LinuxTag because of his broken leg
17:12:05 <cwickert> he said his insurance company will probably cover the ticket he couldn't use
17:12:09 <sesivany> cwickert: I know but he had bought the ticket, so I thought we were considering to reimburse it anyway.
17:12:15 <sesivany> cwickert: ok then
17:12:33 <cwickert> right, I told him to just let us reimburse this
17:12:50 <sesivany> speaking of CLT, I'd like to propose one change...
17:13:01 <cwickert> I think the insurance making a decision will take to long
17:13:19 <cwickert> I'll nag him to just attach the train ticket in trac
17:13:28 <sesivany> CLT showed that approving stuff on per-request basis doesn't work for larger events. It was a nightmare to get oriented in it.
17:13:49 <cwickert> I wouldn't say so, but go on
17:14:22 <sesivany> so my proposal is that if there is a bigger event with several tickets, there should be an event budget on wiki where all expenses are stated.
17:14:33 <cwickert> I think there is nothing wrong with approval, it's just that there was no total budget
17:14:35 <cwickert> right
17:14:38 <sesivany> and the event owner should be responsible for that.
17:14:42 <cwickert> ack
17:14:58 <cwickert> but why not in trac?
17:15:15 <tuanta> +1 sesivany
17:15:22 <cwickert> I usually make one ticket for the budget and let all individual requests block it
17:15:43 <cwickert> and when everything is paid, I make one table with all expenses and link all the attachments
17:15:43 <sesivany> because we have some money allocated to the event, but when we approve requests at meetings, we usually have no idea what the current event budget looks like, if there is money left etc.
17:16:25 <sesivany> cwickert: yes, a ticket in trac with overall budget works too.
17:16:40 <cwickert> here is what I did for LinuxTag: https://fedorahosted.org/emea-swag-tracking/ticket/246
17:16:50 <sesivany> simply some place where we can take a look and immediately know the budget situation.
17:16:51 <cwickert> not everybody can access it I think
17:16:59 <cwickert> wiki might in fact be better
17:17:03 <cwickert> because of provacy
17:17:08 <cwickert> privacy*
17:17:19 <cwickert> in trac there can be bank accounts etc
17:18:02 <cwickert> anyway, we should ask event owners for one overall budget
17:18:03 <sesivany> cwickert: yes, and at the event wiki page, you have everything together, list of participants, reports, program,...
17:18:11 <cwickert> I see
17:18:27 <cwickert> but I'm afraid that some people will cry out loud
17:18:45 * cwickert looks at NA :-)
17:19:03 <sesivany> cwickert: I think kital had a problem with that, too.
17:19:15 <cwickert> no, he had a different problem
17:19:22 <cwickert> but he confused both problems
17:19:42 <cwickert> as the event owner he wanted to have the power to approve requests
17:20:11 <cwickert> so he asked us for a budget of 400 EUR and within that budget he was free to make decisions
17:20:24 <tuanta> that's a bit complicated
17:20:24 <cwickert> I on the other hand asked him for an overall budget
17:20:47 <cwickert> and he though that this was about controlling him and limiting his freedom
17:21:16 <cwickert> so we have two problems here: appring vs. tracking expenses
17:21:24 <cwickert> approving*
17:21:48 <cwickert> I think we should give budget owners the power to decide within their limits
17:21:57 <cwickert> sorry, event owners
17:21:58 <sesivany> cwickert: exactly those are two problems.
17:22:25 <cwickert> I think the event owner can make a better decision whether or not a person is useful at an event
17:22:36 <cwickert> better than the IRC meetings
17:23:15 <sesivany> I see your point
17:23:21 <cwickert> I will update the CLT ticket and explain this a bit
17:23:28 <tuanta> cwickert: have you got any ideas about the limits?
17:23:48 <cwickert> tuanta: the budget that was approved before
17:23:56 <cwickert> example
17:24:08 <sesivany> on the other hand, I understand the approving at meetings as a safety net mechanism through which the community can say it's OK how exactly we spend money.
17:24:09 <cwickert> we have an event and need 5 ambassadors there
17:24:11 <tuanta> yes, it would be fine, I think
17:24:32 <cwickert> each of the ambassadors needs a hotel room and train, this is say 100 EUR each
17:24:42 <cwickert> so the event owner asks for 500 EUR
17:24:55 <cwickert> we approve it and he then can make decisions who is to come or not
17:25:18 <cwickert> and if there is say a 6th ambassador who wants to attend
17:25:41 <cwickert> or somebody who is not approved by the event owner, that person needs to file an idividual request
17:25:50 <cwickert> and the IRC meeting will decide about it
17:25:58 <aeperezt> cwickert, but event owners can deside who goes? or only suggest the amount of people he needs?
17:26:21 <tuanta> got your point
17:26:27 <cwickert> I think it's only fair that if we give the event owners more freedom, we can also expect them to give us a budget
17:27:14 <cwickert> aeperezt: yes, for most of the events the owner knows best if somebody id suitable or not. at least here in EMEA, not sure what it's like in other regions
17:27:49 <cwickert> the event owner knows the target audience and he knows if a person is skilled enough
17:28:04 <sesivany> cwickert: what about asking the event owner for an overall budget draft that can be approved, then if there are any changes within the budget limits, he can do them, but he will have to let other know about them when everything is over.
17:28:22 <aeperezt> cwickert, think event owner should ask people with specific profile for the objectic of the event, not sure it will work right if we let them choose who will go
17:29:03 <cwickert> sesivany: yes, that's more or less the idea. that's what I meant in the townhalls when I said we should get back to a more meritocratic approach
17:29:37 <cwickert> aeperezt: exactly, we can at least try. that's how it works here in EMEA
17:29:50 <cwickert> and if people disagree with the event owner, they can still ask for funding in the IRC meeting
17:29:56 <sesivany> cwickert: it would probably work for EMEA, but we have to make sure that it works for other regions. It works quite differently there.
17:30:07 <aeperezt> cwickert, agreed with meritocratic approach
17:30:13 <cwickert> anyway
17:30:25 <cwickert> I am not sure if we should codify it
17:30:26 <aeperezt> sesivany, yes I agreed
17:30:31 <tuanta> I can work in APAC too, I believe
17:30:36 <aeperezt> latam case can be really complicated
17:30:38 <cwickert> I don't think we should make this a strict rule
17:30:43 <cwickert> just a recommendation
17:30:53 <cwickert> I don't want to create more rules and red tape
17:31:09 <tuanta> we also have other ways for people to ask for support not from event owner (IRC meetings, etc.)
17:31:47 <sesivany> cwickert: I think it never worked that the way that the community decided who would attend the event. It was always the event owner who pre-selected the people and we only gave it an approval which was more like "ack".
17:32:18 <cwickert> maybe something like "If you request sponsorship for attending an event, please talk to the event owner first. He will consider your request and help you to get the necessary budget"
17:32:22 <tuanta> +1 sesivany
17:32:39 <cwickert> sesivany: come on, it DID work that way for years
17:32:52 <cwickert> did you ever have to ask for money to LinuxTag?
17:32:52 <tuanta> event owners usually *know* who should attend
17:33:23 <cwickert> sesivany: when you or Jaroslav asked for funding, I was the one to approve it and not the regional meeting
17:33:41 <cwickert> I recall when Jaroslav was late, I just made the decision because it was still within the budget
17:33:54 <cwickert> and that's how it should work I think
17:34:05 <sesivany> cwickert: that's what I'm saying. It was never the regional meeting who made the actual decision, we only made sure it was ok.
17:34:12 <cwickert> :)
17:34:15 <cwickert> ok, musunderstanding
17:35:14 <cwickert> ok, seems we all agree that we want the event owners to be able to make more decisions as long as it is within the approved limit
17:35:20 <sesivany> cwickert: if the event owner provides an overall budget, I don't see a point not to approve it once and then we can make minor changes as he wants as long as it's done somehow transparently.
17:35:29 <sesivany> we->he
17:35:34 <cwickert> and that we also want them to report about the budget after the event
17:35:47 <cwickert> right
17:36:01 <cwickert> I'll try to whip something up in the wiki
17:36:11 <tuanta> +1 cwickert
17:36:12 <cwickert> but I don't want this as a strict requirement
17:36:23 <cwickert> more like "best practice for organizing an event"
17:37:07 <tuanta> an action?
17:37:15 <sesivany> cwickert: I actually think it's the best way to go. The main reason why we have been approving stuff on per-ticket basis was that kital required a ticket for each reimbursement.
17:37:38 <cwickert> sesivany: that was all messed up
17:38:10 <cwickert> #action cwickert to draft something about best practice for event budgets in the wiki
17:38:19 <cwickert> does this work for everybody?
17:38:31 <cwickert> we need to make sure that NA is happy
17:39:00 <aeperezt> cwickert, not sure if it works on latam
17:39:06 <cwickert> and given that we have no NA representatives here, this should be discussed on the ambassadors list, too
17:39:08 <tuanta> we have no choice at this moment, no NA members attend today
17:39:19 <cwickert> or famsco list at least
17:39:27 <tuanta> +1 cwickert, after you drafted that wiki
17:39:31 <sesivany> cwickert: I think it's very approving process related, so we should put as recommadation and the regions can use it or not. So it's really up to NA.
17:39:39 <tuanta> famsco first, I think
17:40:10 <sesivany> there won't be any NA members, so we will have to find some communication channel with them.
17:40:12 <cwickert> sesivany: actually this should something that NA likes
17:41:01 <tuanta> we would try this in APAC
17:42:14 <sesivany> ok, anything else to this topic?
17:42:29 <aeperezt> we will see the draft and talk with the people on latam to see what changes or adjusments we may need
17:42:33 <aeperezt> or not
17:43:15 <tuanta> sesivany: I got budget status in APAC
17:43:42 <sesivany> aeperezt: yeah, I was specifically thinking of LATAM when I was saying it might not work for all regions. I remember the fight over sponsoring for FISOL.
17:44:21 <aeperezt> sesivany, exactly that event fisl was the issue
17:44:59 <aeperezt> sesivany, if event owner could choose who goes that could be worse in that particular case
17:45:10 <sesivany> aeperezt: that's probably a kind of event where it's need to find a broader consensus, not having it all up to the event owner.
17:45:56 <tuanta> yes, we also have other choices for all people
17:45:59 <aeperezt> but thinking on that event there are only two events on the year on latam that have this type of issue fisl and latinoware
17:46:29 <aeperezt> so will need to see how we can improve that there
17:47:03 <sesivany> aeperezt: you'll see what the draft look like and then you can decide. I think we won't make it a hard rule in EMEA either, just a best practise.
17:47:24 <aeperezt> sesivany, sound like a plan
17:47:26 <sesivany> can we move to APAC's budget?
17:47:46 <tuanta> I am ready here
17:48:20 <sesivany> tuanta: ok, go ahead.
17:48:25 <tuanta> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/APAC/Budget#Q1_.28March_-_May_2013.29
17:49:00 <tuanta> actually, most of scheduled events have not been happened (or the owners did not request any support)
17:49:13 <sesivany> hmmm... interesting
17:49:39 <sesivany> well, it's definitely an experience for the next year.
17:49:41 <cwickert> more money for us :)
17:50:06 <cwickert> seriously, I knew this was going to happen
17:50:22 <cwickert> some countries requested like 6 times more budget than last year
17:50:30 <tuanta> yes, we need a lot changes to improve
17:50:36 <cwickert> not surprising they didn't spend it
17:50:48 <cwickert> tuanta: don't worry, it's learning curve
17:51:10 <cwickert> but I guess it will be similar in LATAM
17:51:12 <sesivany> tuanta: if I understood it correctly, you're able to fully cover the Tibetan L10n ticket?
17:51:15 <tuanta> I can manage it in my country, Vietnam
17:51:36 <tuanta> yes, sesivany. I think it's better way
17:52:03 <tuanta> but up to now, I do not know how to manage it in other countries
17:52:14 <tuanta> any ideas for me?
17:52:17 <sesivany> tuanta: I think it's definitely a project worth supporting.
17:52:27 <aeperezt> cwickert, It could but not think so, we had a really slow start but we already catch up this quater
17:52:48 <tuanta> yes, sesivany, I see. I love it. I even hope I can be there to support it directly
17:53:17 <cwickert> aeperezt: ok, cool
17:53:20 <sesivany> tuanta: you can't control everything. If they don't deliver, it's not your fault.
17:53:46 <cwickert> tuanta: indeed, it's not your fault
17:53:46 <tuanta> but I still want to improve the whole system here in APAC
17:53:53 <cwickert> you are doing a very good job already
17:54:00 <sesivany> tuanta: maybe having some backup activities would be good. The Tibetan thing actually comes handy now :)
17:54:33 <cwickert> sesivany: ok, should we book this onto the APAC budget?
17:54:43 <cwickert> everybody fine with that?
17:54:48 <cwickert> it's USD 500, right?
17:54:49 <tuanta> yes, this is our first year. Sometimes, those events are good
17:54:57 <sesivany> tuanta: for the next year, you'll know who is reliable or who is not and based on that, you can allocate the budget.
17:55:00 <tuanta> yes, I think it better way
17:55:17 <aeperezt> tuanta it the learning curve that is a delay people need to catch up on planning an executing properlly
17:55:22 <sesivany> cwickert: yes, guys already suggested that in the ticket.
17:56:03 <cwickert> ok
17:56:30 <cwickert> #info https://fedorahosted.org/emea-swag-tracking/ticket/252 will be booked onto the APAC budget
17:56:32 <tuanta> yes, I think it would be better year to year. One of the most important stuffs I need to do this year is noting everything
17:56:47 <cwickert> tuanta: +10
17:56:59 <tuanta> cwickert: yes, I would be counted to Q2 budget
17:57:19 <cwickert> ok
17:57:48 <tuanta> thanks again for your support
17:57:50 <sesivany> tuanta: just make sure the requests are not just delayed. It would be a really bad surprise if people started asking for money 6 months later or something.
17:58:39 <sesivany> it's another best practise or even a hard rule: ask for reimbursement within a month after you get the receipt if there are no other objective reasons not to do it.
17:58:53 <tuanta> sesivany: I do not understand what you mean. I think: no request => just no support
17:59:10 <tuanta> ah, I see
17:59:20 <sesivany> if someone wants support from Fedora I don't think it's such a hard job to provide a receipt within a few weeks.
17:59:47 <tuanta> people must file a ticket to get approved first
18:00:15 <sesivany> tuanta: you make a request, the event happens, you provide the receipt and ask for money, unfortunately people take time with the last two things.
18:00:35 <tuanta> I got your point
18:00:47 <tuanta> any ideas, how about in EMEA?
18:00:54 <sesivany> tuanta: if they didn't even make a request, then it's simple :)
18:01:42 <sesivany> tuanta: if you have no open tickets that have been approved, but are waiting for receipts, it's ok. That's a problem we have in EMEA.
18:03:07 <tuanta> in APAC, people must file a ticket first; then event happens; then provide receipts and wait for money
18:03:08 <sesivany> tuanta: people ask, it's approved, but then we're waiting for months until they provide receipts and can get reimbursed, then all payments are delayed.
18:03:16 <tuanta> it's similar other regions
18:03:28 <tuanta> yes, I got your point
18:03:50 <tuanta> just asking you have any ideas to solve that situation?
18:04:55 <tuanta> than I think ask for people to provide receipts no later than a month after the event is a good rule
18:05:00 <sesivany> tuanta: I don't know if more intensive communication would help. Asking people 1-2 months ahead of planned events if they're really planning to do it.
18:05:07 <tuanta> s/than/then
18:06:04 <sesivany> if you have no or not sufficient response, then you might want to reconsider the plans and use it for something else, more reliable when it's still time to do it.
18:06:27 <tuanta> we should have something updated into Reimbursement guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/APAC/Reimbursement
18:07:56 <tuanta> now we do not have any strict milestone for each step
18:08:29 <tuanta> As I see, it's similar in EMEA: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/EMEA/Reimbursement
18:09:07 <tuanta> do you think we should set some milestones?
18:09:22 <sesivany> tuanta: you mean deadlines?
18:09:41 <tuanta> yes, milestones for each step.
18:09:44 <tuanta> something like
18:10:07 <tuanta> file a ticket 1 month before the event date
18:10:29 <tuanta> provide receipts within a month after the event date
18:10:35 <tuanta> something like that
18:10:45 <sesivany> tuanta: hard to say, it's more red tape definitely, we have to be careful about that. You have to ask if it would solve your problems.
18:11:17 <tuanta> ok, we will think more about this
18:11:37 * cwickert needs to leave now
18:12:02 <tuanta> ok, it's a bit late here also
18:12:06 <sesivany> tuanta: if you have some event that is planned, is it important for you that you find out that it's not going to happen, say, 2 weeks before you'd find it out anyway.
18:12:10 <sesivany> ?
18:12:25 <sesivany> cwickert: see ya, will end the meeting soon anyway.
18:13:26 <sesivany> tuanta: I think the only reason for setting the deadline for making a ticket is to have enough time to approve it.
18:13:50 <sesivany> if you have a problem with that, you might consider it.
18:13:56 <tuanta> yes, but it should be considered more
18:14:43 <tuanta> However, deadline for providing receipts is necessary
18:14:48 <sesivany> having a deadline for providing a receipt makes sense if people tend to provide it too late like in EMEA because it makes the payments delayed and makes problems in budgeting.
18:15:36 <tuanta> we can set it a month, except some special cases (approved by budget wrangler or s IRC meeting)
18:15:53 <sesivany> try to make it a best practise (recommendation) first.
18:16:01 <cwickert> I like the idea of a deadline, but we need to be very careful
18:16:29 <sesivany> not to run into situations when someone provides receipts after 35 days and you would have to tell him he is sorry.
18:16:53 <cwickert> I for example probably have around ~500 EUR I never got reimbursed just because I could not find the receipts or filed the ticket so lage
18:16:53 <sesivany> that's what I'm planning to do for EMEA.
18:16:55 <cwickert> late*
18:17:11 <cwickert> it's not my own fault and I can live with it
18:17:15 <cwickert> but others cannot
18:17:17 <tuanta> yes, we can think this more later
18:17:41 <cwickert> and this is one of the reasons I request full sponsorship for FLOCK this time
18:17:53 <cwickert> I normally would have paid the hotel myself
18:18:16 <cwickert> but I take it as compensation for everything I paid in the last year and did not get reimbursed
18:18:29 <cwickert> anyway, lets not be too strict
18:18:48 <tuanta> yes, make sense
18:19:05 <tuanta> so we should not decide anything now
18:19:40 <tuanta> I think it's enough today
18:19:53 <tuanta> any other topics to discuss today?
18:19:57 <sesivany> ok, I'm going to end the meeting.
18:20:07 <sesivany> tuanta: not I can think of.
18:20:22 * cwickert leaves, see you
18:20:39 <sesivany> and if it's the last meeting of this term, let me thank all FAmSCo members for their work.
18:21:15 <sesivany> #endmeeting