Summits, Conferences and Meetups workgroup - 2020-03-03

  1. daniel has left

  2. daniel has joined

  3. daniel has left

  4. daniel has joined

  5. daniel has left

  6. daniel has joined

  7. daniel has left

  8. daniel has joined

  9. daniel has left

  10. daniel has joined

  11. daniel has left

  12. daniel has joined

  13. daniel has left

  14. daniel has joined

  15. mrheritage has left

  16. mrheritage has joined

  17. debxwoody has joined

  18. debxwoody has left

  19. daniel has left

  20. daniel has joined

  21. COM8 has joined

  22. COM8 has left

  23. mrheritage has left

  24. mrheritage has joined

  25. mrheritage has left

  26. mrheritage has joined

  27. pep.

    ! just came back

  28. daniel

    google reminds me that we have a meeting in 5

  29. pep.


  30. pep.

    hi all

  31. daniel

    so who is here?

  32. daniel

    nobody it seems

  33. Guus


  34. pep.


  35. pep.


  36. pep.

    Ok let's start then

  37. pep.

    1. Agenda

  38. pep.

    There's nothing on trello but there WIP items, we can go over those

  39. pep.

    Guus, do you want to update us with the flyers?

  40. pep.

    Guus, do you want to update us on the flyers?

  41. Guus

    I don't have any updates on that.

  42. Guus

    other than what I shared here.

  43. pep.


  44. pep.

    Sprints then

  45. daniel

    fwiw i like everything that has been produced so far

  46. daniel

    thank you Guus for handling that

  47. pep.

    yep :)

  48. pep.

    2. Supporting sprints

  49. daniel

    i didn’t even mind the 'stockieness' of the latest one

  50. daniel

    (didn’t get a chance to say that when you originally posted that)

  51. pep.

    So, following the thread on the list, I'd like us to settle on a proposal. I've integrated feedback in the one I sent already

  52. pep.

    let me copy paste it in a pad somewhere so we have it clearly

  53. Guus

    I'm in favor of spending limited amounts on sprints, as suggested. We do need to find a way to get the movement of money happen. Currently, our bank account is in the states, and transferring money takes quite some effort, and is somewhat costly (which, offsetted against the relatively low costs for sprints, would make things expensive)

  54. daniel

    the xsf could just get transferwise or something

  55. Guus

    also, I'd like to not overburden the treasurer with many, small requests, like having every participant reimburse their own bit.

  56. Guus

    Sure, but that's not free either, right?

  57. daniel

    no the idea was that the organizer sends one invoice

  58. daniel

    Guus, it is not. but way cheaper than regular bank transfer

  59. Guus

    My understanding (maybe wrong) is that you loose relatively a lot when transferring smaller amounts?

  60. Guus

    ok, happy to be wrong on that then.

  61. daniel

    i can look that up again but i think transferwise is always %

  62. pep.

    Guus, what would you suggest otherwise? That we get a bank also in Europe?

  63. daniel

    vs regular wire transfer which is always like 20 bucks or so

  64. daniel

    or 40

  65. Guus

    pep. Setting up a bank account in Europe (or at least in the Netherlands) for an organization is deceptively hard.

  66. Guus

    There are many anti-fraud rules to abide by. I tried doing that for Ignite, but decided against it for the sheer amount of work involved.

  67. pep.

    What about asking organizations like SPI ( who would explicitely handle that for us

  68. Guus

    (eg, we had to have individual officers show up, in person, at either the bank or a local consulate)

  69. daniel

    but yes we can make it an additional rule that there is only one reimburstment

  70. pep.

    And also free some time for peter

  71. daniel

    (i kinda thought that was obvious; but doesn’t hurt to make it explicit)

  72. pep. sorry for people on mobile

  73. Guus

    I suggest that we discuss the vehicle for payment with the XSF Treasurer

  74. Guus

    I'm sure that we can make something happen.

  75. pep.

    I don't think we have to make it a rule that there is only one person expensing things, but we can indeed mention that's how we would prefer it

  76. Guus

    I'm not familiar with SPI - maybe that's a good way - but maybe Peter doesn't mind the extra work at all.

  77. daniel

    but we are in general agreement that what pep. wrote down in the email and on the pad is what we want to do, right?

  78. daniel

    do we need an official vote?

  79. daniel

    or can we just go ahead and publish that

  80. Guus

    Who's budget is this coming from?

  81. pep.


  82. Guus

    Then we're pretty limited.

  83. Guus

    1000 USD per year.

  84. pep.

    We can put a hard limit on the number of events we're going to sponsor

  85. daniel

    well with 100-150 per sprint and ~6 sprints a year we are fine for now

  86. pep.

    And we can get an agreement from board that they'd extend it if necessary for N more events maybe

  87. pep.

    But I do think we're fine for now

  88. Guus

    Also, I do want to raise this with board before the XSF / SCAM commits to this.

  89. Guus

    the SCAM budget is also used for other stuff 🙂

  90. Guus

    stickers, swag, etc. If we're going to have 6 sprints/year, there's little budget left for that.

  91. pep.

    Not that much, but yeah ~

  92. Guus

    we could ask for more budget, or we could ask for it to not come from SCAMs budget in the first place

  93. pep.

    I'll submit that to board for this week then

  94. Guus

    Why do we want to take it from SCAMs budget? Seems like an additional hoop / bookkeeping to do to me, with little benefit?

  95. daniel

    i'd prefer that we use up our budget and than have a reason to get our budget raised

  96. pep.

    hmm I might not be here at this time. that'll depend again on weather and the state of my legs :x

  97. pep.

    Guus, I don't have any preferences

  98. pep.

    Just that we're SCAM

  99. Guus

    let's put that question to board. I'm fine with either, but going not through SCAM seems easier to me.

  100. daniel

    would that mean that board has to vote on every sprint?

  101. daniel

    i'd prefer us doing that

  102. pep.

    same here

  103. Guus

    Oh, no.

  104. Guus

    I definitely do not want to have board vote on sprints

  105. daniel

    i mean if you are worried about sprints cutting too much in our swag budget i'm fine with limiting to 4 sprints for now or whatever

  106. daniel

    i just want to get started asap

  107. Guus

    are we going to explicitly vote on each/

  108. daniel

    i think we (scam) should vote

  109. Guus


  110. Guus

    seems sensible

  111. pep.

    I think we should as well. We kinda have to see if the event fits our requirements

  112. Guus

    I still think that we could ask for board to allow us to do that, and for the money spent not to come out of SCAMs budget.

  113. daniel

    yeah. i'm not really expecting us to say no a lot. but there has to be some oversight

  114. pep.

    We might also want to set meetings for when something is proposed?

  115. Guus

    (I need to go soon)

  116. pep.


  117. daniel

    but then let's write down an actual proposal (without todos)

  118. Guus

    a monthly cadence of meetings should work with 4 to 6 sprints per year?

  119. daniel

    because board needs something that has no todos to vote on

  120. Guus


  121. daniel

    i mean a lot of the TBDs seem obvious to us

  122. Guus

    budget based on participant count or event?

  123. Guus

    participant count might be hard to 'prove'

  124. Guus

    (although seems more fair)

  125. Guus

    maybe event with minimum amount of participants? Something like 4?

  126. pep.

    I suggest we go without a minimum for now. I'm happy to review once we get some more experience

  127. daniel

    i suggest we only start to build in abuse prevent once we have a reason to suspect people are abusing it

  128. Guus

    We should not have one-participant events getting money 🙂

  129. daniel

    (re proving participant count)

  130. daniel

    but yes minimum count might make sense

  131. pep.

    Also because there isn't anything saying you shouldn't do this and that doesn't mean we can't refuse

  132. Guus

    it'd be good to define a bit of framework, that we can later use if something is challenged.

  133. Guus

    Things involving money tend to get dirty fast. It'd be good to define a rule against which we measure things, if only very broad.

  134. Guus

    Some kind of minimum participant count, as well as a fixed budget would be enough for me

  135. pep.

    fixed budget?

  136. daniel

    ok. then we say that participants must be registered on the wiki

  137. daniel

    they have been in the past anyway

  138. Guus

    pep. like 100 euro per event, that has at least 4 participants.

  139. Guus

    (I'm open to different numbers)

  140. Guus

    registration on the wiki works for me.

  141. daniel

    i'd still like a per participant amount

  142. pep.

    Do you prefer this because of what you said above? That it'd be hard to find out the exact count?

  143. daniel

    instead of 100 euro flat fee

  144. pep.

    same here

  145. daniel

    but i'm fine with having a 4 minuim

  146. daniel

    so it's not just me and pep. having diner in dresden

  147. pep.

    4 also seems fine to me

  148. Guus

    I think flat fees would be a lot simpler. Less debate about how many people were there, etc.

  149. Guus

    not a hill for me to die on though

  150. pep.

    If it's ok with you I'd like to see how it works for the first few requests we get

  151. daniel

    i get the simpler. but for example in stockholm 100 euro wouldn’t have been enough

  152. daniel

    for the ~10 people or so

  153. pep.

    TBH I don't think we're going to get a lot of them

  154. Guus

    daniel I'm fine by not covering all costs perse. This is just sponsoring, not financing 🙂

  155. pep.

    I had a cap at 150EUR as a suggestion in the proposal

  156. pep.

    That's about what we spent for 10 (a bit less iirc)

  157. Guus

    Where does the money go that is not spent?

  158. daniel

    i'm ok with a cap of 150. but giving a group of 4 and a group of 10 the same amount doesn’t feel right

  159. pep.

    Guus, it's just not expensed

  160. pep.

    We don't give them 150, they ask up to 150

  161. pep.

    daniel, yeah

  162. Guus

    ah, that's more elaborate. I thought we'd just give an amount, and not bother with having invoices,e tc.

  163. Guus

    (which is part of the reason I was aiming a bit lower)

  164. pep.

    Ok. That's always how I've been doing events / expenses

  165. pep.

    So maybe we also need to specify that

  166. pep.

    As it doesn't seem to seem obvious

  167. pep.

    to be

  168. Guus

    I'm not hearing anything that I wildly disagree with, btw. If you guys feel strongly about a per person instead of per event fee, I'd be ok with that.

  169. Guus

    I do need to go now. Can we wrap up?

  170. pep.

    yep, seems ok to me

  171. daniel


  172. pep.

    I'll summarize all that, send an email to scam and add an agenda item for board

  173. pep.

    I might not be present this week for board though

  174. pep.

    Thanks all

  175. Guus

    ok, thanks!

  176. pep.

    Next is +1 month as usual. April 7th

  177. Guus


  178. mrheritage has left

  179. mrheritage has joined

  180. daniel has left

  181. daniel has joined

  182. daniel has left

  183. daniel has joined

  184. daniel has left

  185. daniel has joined