On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Remy DeCausemaker <decause@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Matthew Miller >> <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Okay, so: >>> >>> Last Regional Best Guess >>> Official FY17 at Actual >>> Budget Request FY16 Spending⁵ >>> >>> APAC 12650 (12.7%) 33025¹ (22.1%) 7600 (13.1%) >>> EMEA 27000 (27.0%) 33250 (22.2%) 15000 (26.0%) >>> LATAM 16500 (16.5%) 23180 (15.5%) 11000 (19.0%) >>> NA 43850 (43.9%) 60000² (40.1%) 24200 (41.9%) >>> >>> total 100000³ 149455⁴ 57800 >>> >>> 1. Based on totaling the wiki page >>> 2. Wow >>> 3. Remember, this year's budget excluded FADs, which is not something >>> we want to repeat; FADs were actually paid for from underspend >>> 4. Yeah, that'd be nice.... >>> 5. This may not account for everything, but here's what we have from >>> internal records. >>> >>> So, as a semi-arbitrary starting point, if we average the percentages >>> from each of the categories, that gives us: >>> >>> APAC: 17.3% >>> EMEA: 24.5% >>> LATAM: 16.5% >>> NA: 41.7% >>> >>> If we give EMEA a 5 percentage-point "credit" for having a nice >>> spreadsheet in early, that works out to: >>> >>> APAC: 15.6% >>> EMEA: 29.5% >>> LATAM: 14.9% >>> NA: 40.0% >>> >>> If we allocate the $73500 in total regional funding, that looks like >>> this (rounded slightly for prettiness): >>> >>> Adjusted Percent of Percent of >>> FY17 Asked for Recorded FY16 >>> Allocation Amount Spending >>> >>> APAC: $11500 34.8% 151.3% >>> EMEA: $21650 65.1% 144.3% >>> LATAM: $10950 47.2% 99.5% >>> NA: $29400 49.0% 121.5% >>> >>> >>> Like I said, here's a starting point. What do you think? >> >> To be clear, the numbers above are contingent on the regions >> submitting an actual proposed budget with detailed plans for the >> funds, correct? I know that is a departure from previous years, but >> given we want to start tracking our money more clearly, I would think >> having those budgets and plans in place before funds are allocated >> makes sense. >> >> In other words, the dollar amounts above aren't going to be given even >> if we all agree to them until all the regional budget information is >> in place. > > Though I am with you in spirit here, in reality, we have been asking > for this information for nearly 2 months now on public lists, in > ambassador and FAMSCO and Council meetings, in IRC, Telegram, via > personal direct email. I am not sure how else to ask for this > information, or get at it. I gave you a solution. They don't get funds without budgets and plans. It's very simple. > Going forward, I think that we'll be able to get event reports and > metrics on an event-by-event basis for FY17, because we are going to > hold funds for reimbursement unless the requirements are fulfilled. That's a spin on what I said above. I'm OK with that I guess. > Going forward, I think that we'll be able to get quarterly reports on > spending and impact in FY17 because we have identified regional > delegates responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the process > (fingers crossed.) Yay? > Going forward, I think that we'll be able to get proposed budgets from > the regions for FY18 because we're going to support budget planning > workshops at Flock with (ideally) all the regional treasurers in the > same room. Good. > Looking back, I think that getting proposed budgets for FY17 does not > change the actual "big number" we have to distribute in FY17, and at Actually, it does. We have a "big number" but it does not mean we have to give away the big number irresponsibly. > this point should not block the process moving forward. Getting > proposed budget for FY18 is a top priority though, and we should > absolutely make Q4 allocations dependent upon submission of a proposed > budget at the end of Q3. As I said, I'm fine with approving Matthew's proposal from a theoretical perspective. However when it comes to actually allocating funds, we need to be firm or FY18 will have the same struggles. There is no reason to defer the full process another year. josh _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
