#58: Regional allocation for FY17 budget ---------------------+-------------------- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Status: new | Priority: major Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+-------------------- Comment (by cwickert): Replying to [comment:8 mattdm]: > I guess if we are looking at $15k for APAC FUDCon but holding LATAM to $10k, my inclination is to just add the overlooked $1k to LATAM. +1 If we do that–or at least make sure, LATAM does not get less than they spent last year- I'm +1 for the regional allocation. I suggest we consider this part done and move on in order to not delay the process further. '''Everybody ok with that?''' > This is new, but we're also asking for quarterly updates and re- balancing from the regions. That way, we a) realize if we're getting out of sync before we get to the end of the year and b) can re-prioritize if needed. Sounds fair, but that was not my question. Do we want a quarterly split ''at the beginning'' or not? If so, this initial split takes some time, probably more than 2-4 weeks you estimated. Last but not least I still think we should not only rebalance from the regions but also give them the chance to rebalance quarters. This is the regional support budget and it is called 'regional' for a reason. > I'm not sold on this. There are a lot of other things which might be more valuable overall to the project than swag, and it'd be nice to at least be able to consider them. I fully agree, that's *exactly* why we used to handle it this way. By using (mostly) left-over money from one year, we make sure swag does not block more important things the next year. If we are out of swag, so be it, we can still carry on with events etc. But if we are out of money for events... Anyway, this is not a must for me, I just wanted to share some background information for those who are not familiar with how the budget used to be managed. > I don't think "no other use" is right at all. It should be _good_ use (both at quarter end and always). Ok, "no other _meaningful_ use" then. :-) The question is: Who is to decide what is good use and what is not? Who is to judge if something in region A is more useful for Fedora as a whole than else in region B? I think people in the regions know best what is good for them. Over the past years, FAmSCo has been working hard to delegate responsibilities down to the regions. Ultimately, we want an open project with a flat hierarchy. We want to motivate people to be responsible for their regions. Therefor I'm very concerned about the centralist tendencies I see in the council and the budget.next process. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/58#comment:9> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets _______________________________________________ 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.
