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