2017-02-16 14:51 GMT+01:00 Brian Exelbierd <bex(a)pobox.com>:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017, at 10:51 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
[snip]
I am not seeing how this doubles the work for ambassadors, perhaps you can
help me. I think the workflow is:
1. Have something that you want funded by Fedora
2. Open a pagure ticket in the regional track and request funding approval
3. Funding is approved and noted in the ticket
4. Do the thing
5. Open a ticket in the budget track and include a link to the funding
approval ticket from #2
6. Upload your receipts
7. Get reimbursed
Step 5 is the only extra step. I don't see that step as doubling the
effort. It is, as far as I can tell, literally the extra work of:
1. Copy url
2. Click new issue
3. Paste url
Everything else is the same.
What have I missed?
The extra stuff might cause problems. I know people sometimes are having
difficulties even to file a correct ticket on the swag trac, you can
immagine if we add a thing like "then open a new ticket where you have to
write this this and that".
We should simplify things as much as possible instead of complicating them.
then we need to close and archive the old trac. You cannot just migrate
the swag trac as a normal pagure repo. I don't know anything about other
regional tracs, but the EMEA trac has even tickets per single FAS account
in the past. Making them public is a no-go. The only way I see is
migrating them as private tickets and set new tickets as default to public.
I am don't have an opinion on what should happen to the old data. There
are lots of good comments by others so I defer to them. I am only thinking
about a way that we can have an effective workflow from today (in Pagure)
forward and require the fewest customizations and feature changes to Pagure
so that we eliminate blockers.
You cannot separate this and just look at what you are interested in.
Unless you want to archive the old data and make it accessible only for
trac admins through a DB dump.
2. When the purchase is completed a new ticket is opened privately in
fedora-budget. This is the ticket where receipts and payment information
are placed. This is closed to just the budget folks (FCAIC, treasurers,
card holders). The reimbursement/payment is processed. This ticket
includes the reference to the public ticket opened in #1.
3. The public ticket, if not already closed is closed with an update
stating the total paid.
While the idea is not bad, I see some issues with filing all these
tickets. An additional help could be to make a template in the budget
repo, where people are just asked to fill out some data: ticket number of
the swag repo, amount, payment information etc.
+1 I definitely support templating here. I also believe that funding
request tickets should be templated too.
Cool :D
It creates an extra step for the payment processors (#3), but I don't
think it represents a lot of work (there is a link in #2). This also
allows us to more easily track receipts in a closed way while being very
open about the approval process. That is a HUGE win for audit purposes.
The main goal should be to migrate the tickets correctly and keep private
data private, not auditing or statistics.
I look at the migration separately from protecting information in a new
workflow. I am only addressing the information protection in the new
workflow.
Also, while audit is not a primary goal, a successfully auditable system
ensure that our financial needs will not get blocked on process problems.
If we can get that as a bonus, it serves to help us.
Same as above. If you just care about what is important for your process
now, you don't get all points we need to fill. In that case we will need to
find a solution anyway (just archiving is one of it, but not really a good
one).
Did you at least think about actual open tickets?
regards,
bex
Kind regards.
--
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)