#58: Regional allocation for FY17 budget ---------------------+-------------------- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Status: new | Priority: major Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+-------------------- Comment (by mattdm): Replying to [comment:9 cwickert]: > 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?''' +1 > 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. Ah, yes. I think we do want the split at the beginning, but I don't really _specifically_ care about it from the point of view of overall allocation. And, yeah, 2-4 weeks seems reasonable, especially this time around. The various plans _do_ have quarterly splits already, but they will need to be adjusted and I can see that taking some time. Although I guess also, looking at the calendar, that will basically coincide with Q1 being complete already. > 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. Okay, fair enough. I do hope that regions with under-spending and no immediate plans consider overall Fedora needs, too, though. > 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. I see the concern. But, we *do* need to spend money globally, and on things which may be regional but which aren't necessarily ambassador- focused (for example translation events). The FY14 budget that we've been continuing from did not allocate anything for FADs, when in retrospect it probably should have; that puts us in a hard spot for shifting funding back to FADs _now_. We ultimately ''are'' responsible for deciding if money has more useful for Fedora as a whole in region A or region B. We need evidence that what we're doing is working, whether decentralized or not. Decentralized has a natural tendency to go in all sorts of different directions, which can be powerful, but it can also be inefficient — and can be hard to put together again into a coherent story. Right now, we don't have a way to show where the money went, why, and what we got out of it. I think Remy's plan (with the three different roles in each region) will help — and help keep things decentralized. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/58#comment:10> 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.
