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 I
  34. pep. yeah
  35. pep. Oh
  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. Okay
  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. SCAM
  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 k
  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. k
  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 right
  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 yes
  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 wfm
  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