On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em Seg, 2012-02-20 às 12:26 -0600, inode0 escreveu: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Igor Pires Soares >> Let me be more clear. I know we always have deadlines. But what I >> really want is for *everyone* who meets those deadlines to be treated >> as if they all did that at the same moment so the order of requests is >> no longer a factor at all. > > I get it and totally agree with it. A request placed before doesn't mean > that it's more valuable than others in any way. But in addition to that > we need to make sure that those deadlines will be firmly respected. I agree with your point too. >> > The idea of ranking the requests sounds perfectly reasonable but we need >> > to be very clear about who is eligible to make this rank. In the case of >> > FUDCons I think that FAmSCo, local organizers and the FPL should be >> > directly involved. But for regional major events such FISL or FOSDEM I >> > don't think that is feasible to involve all of them in all events. In >> > such cases I'd rather involve a regional mentor and a FAmSCo member who >> > might be willing to help in this particular event. Together they could >> > go through all the requests as you said and present the final result in >> > a wiki page, for instance. >> >> Let me also be more clear about this. The goal of this ranking is >> really only to focus attention on what would normally be easy, high >> value, requests earlier in the process. And to stop penalizing someone >> who tries to find other funding until the last minute when they add >> their request to the end of the current queue. It isn't meant to be at >> all binding on those making the approvals. > > I agree that the ranking will help to focus on more appropriated aspects > instead of the order the requests were filled. That is totally > reasonable. My point is that some criteria should be adopted to define > who will be entitled to compose the ranking, since it will be highly > subjective. We need to make sure it will be composed in a transparent > and legitimate way. I don't have a suggestion about a criterion for who decides but I do have one for how they decide and that is explained in our current travel subsidy guidelines here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees It doesn't need to be a separate group who does this, it could be the same group who is making the funding decisions. I just think we'd do a better job if we made one pass through all the requests individually before as a group evaluating them one at a time. Here is one possible way I have imagined this working. Let's say there are 5 contributors involved in making the decisions. We clean out the special cases that we agree on first. Then with the rest we each rank them in some range (say 1 to 3 with 1 being high value, 2 being very high value, and 3 being unbelievably Beefy Miracle with extra relish value). Sum up the individual rankings and as a group work through all the requests in the order this produces. (Probably still need wiggle room in the process but that is the general idea.) John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
