Send foundation-list mailing list submissions to
foundation-list gnome org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-list-request gnome org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-list-owner gnome org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-list digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014
(Zeeshan Ali (Khattak))
2. Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014
(Sriram Ramkrishna)
3. Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014 (Sindhu S)
4. Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014 (Sindhu S)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:10:59 +0100
From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak gnome org>
To: Sindhu S <sindhus live in>
Cc: GNOME Foundation <foundation-list gnome org>
Subject: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014
Message-ID:
<CAAa3hFOTndoFKMNK-pUyEEiXdZb3NtMKxdMF2PYRi9A3LfMFgQ mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Sindhu S <sindhus live in> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya <marinaz redhat com>
> wrote:
>>
>> This was done because Diego e-mailed the board with a special request and
>> the majority of directors felt that it was reasonable to reimburse for visa
>> expenses, when we will not be reimbursing for a larger amount we earlier
>> approved that would be needed for the person to make the trip.
>
>
> I approached the board too. My visa expenses didn't exceed the sponsorship
> approved either. The email was sent to board gnome org and here's a
> screenshot:
> http://i.imgur.com/FivZRwB.png. Why didn't the rest of the board respond
> then?
>
>>
>> As you can see, this reimbursement was done by a separate vote as an
>> exception to the current rule.
>>
>> I'm sorry an exception or a policy review were not considered when you
>> were denied a visa. As you can see, the board also decided we should discuss
>> amending the policy about reimbursement for rejected visas in the future.
>
>
> What is so special about Diego that his situation has provoked a policy
> change?
Aren't you presuming that it was only because of Diego's case that
board wants to rethink its policy and that your (and other people's)
case wasn't part of the push to make them rethink?
> Why was the reimbursement policies upheld in my case and relaxed in
> his?
> The current situation on GNOME's financials was very much made public and in
> between being low on cash, how is that board can make such an exception?
If you follow those threads carefully, you'd realize that it was not
the case of 'low on cash'.
> If the board is going to make a policy change, then please bring it into
> working *first* and then entertain cases that occur after it not before.
> Otherwise it's just plain unfair.
Since visa process is not in the hands of the board, I think any help
that board offers is a big favour so IMO what is unfair here is for
you to complain for not getting a favour while another person did. I'm
a bit sad to hear this from an ex-OPW participant as OPW is itself an
unfair[1] advantage and you were one of the people to get that. If it
makes you feel better, Diego will not get that favour.
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
________________________________________
Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/
[1] Don't get me wrong, being a big supporter of OPW, I understand the
rationale for being unfair and in fact thats my point.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:06:12 -0700
From: Sriram Ramkrishna <sri ramkrishna me>
To: Sindhu S <sindhus live in>
Cc: Foundation-List <foundation-list gnome org>
Subject: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014
Message-ID:
<CADWtFEkasVxdVi=8_Y0Yc8NFL7k-LaZtfQgCNOLgBy5qGpnVvQ mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Apr 25, 2014 9:26 AM, "Sindhu S" <sindhus live in> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya <marinaz redhat com>
wrote:
>>
>> This was done because Diego e-mailed the board with a special request
and the majority of directors felt that it was reasonable to reimburse for
visa expenses, when we will not be reimbursing for a larger amount we
earlier approved that would be needed for the person to make the trip.
>
>
> I approached the board too. My visa expenses didn't exceed the
sponsorship approved either. The email was sent to board gnome org and
here's a screenshot:
> http://i.imgur.com/FivZRwB.png. Why didn't the rest of the board respond
then?
>
The original plan was that Diego was going to pay for the visa processing
and the foundation was going to pay for the ticket. Unfortunately, he was
unable to get a visa and was out a significant amount of money and had
asked if the board would pay for the visa application in lieu of the plane
ticket. Meaning if we were already going to pay for a larger sum of money
anyway it should be OK to pay for the smaller amount.
That conversation lead to an overall look at how we view the policy of visa
processing since you pointed out we don't generally pay for them.
The difference between your situation and Diego is that Diego isn't going
anywhere and is out of money. The second difference is that Diego only
applied for the visa because I asked him to come to the west coast
hackfest. So it wasn't even his idea or his initiative but mine. That's
why it was looked at as a special case.
I hope that clears things up.
Sri
>>
>> As you can see, this reimbursement was done by a separate vote as an
exception to the current rule.
>>
>> I'm sorry an exception or a policy review were not considered when you
were denied a visa. As you can see, the board also decided we should
discuss amending the policy about reimbursement for rejected visas in the
future.
>
>
> What is so special about Diego that his situation has provoked a policy
change? Why was the reimbursement policies upheld in my case and relaxed in
his?
> The current situation on GNOME's financials was very much made public and
in between being low on cash, how is that board can make such an exception?
>
> If the board is going to make a policy change, then please bring it into
working *first* and then entertain cases that occur after it not before.
Otherwise it's just plain unfair.
>
> -Sindhu
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/attachments/20140426/5f769222/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:37:40 +0530
From: Sindhu S <sindhus live in>
To: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak gnome org>
Cc: GNOME Foundation <foundation-list gnome org>
Subject: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014
Message-ID:
<CAAjia4YzkDMbdF1KN0QnN3u3V1W4sG-S04H9tLhKNzZAq+8+Yg mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
>
> Aren't you presuming that it was only because of Diego's case that
> board wants to rethink its policy and that your (and other people's)
> case wasn't part of the push to make them rethink?
>
What I am assuming is that everybody in GNOME is equal. The board wants to
rethink the policy, please do. Rethink it, bring it into force and then
entertain cases that occur after it. Otherwise, it is bending rules to
those who it favors.
If the policy changes on a future vote, it would be retroactive. The board
must reimburse all those who lost money trying to obtain a visa for a event
that GNOME agreed to sponsor travel for and that list so far as I know has:
myself, Aruna, Shobha and now Deigo.
> If the board is going to make a policy change, then please bring it into
> > working *first* and then entertain cases that occur after it not before.
> > Otherwise it's just plain unfair.
>
> Since visa process is not in the hands of the board, I think any help
> that board offers is a big favour
> so IMO what is unfair here is for
> you to complain for not getting a favour while another person did.
Favoring is a unfair, period.
If not, why even have rules in place?
> I'm
> a bit sad to hear this from an ex-OPW participant as OPW is itself an
> unfair[1] advantage and you were one of the people to get that. If it
> makes you feel better, Diego will not get that favour.
>
> [1] Don't get me wrong, being a big supporter of OPW, I understand the
> rationale for being unfair and in fact thats my point.
>
I pointed out that I was an OPW intern to add to the fact that I was
invited to a GNOME centric event. It doesn't make me happy if Deigo doesn't
get the money, it makes me sad that this is unfair to everybody else.
I urge all those who are reading this discussion, please speak up for
equality and fairness.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/attachments/20140426/73a149a6/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:45:33 +0530
From: Sindhu S <sindhus live in>
To: Sriram Ramkrishna <sri ramkrishna me>
Cc: Foundation-List <foundation-list gnome org>
Subject: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014
Message-ID:
<CAAjia4bX6S4j5GNbdsA2SddyySURjuy2JyF=mzsd8FL9=fcQ6A mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna <sri ramkrishna me>wrote:
>
> The original plan was that Diego was going to pay for the visa processing
> and the foundation was going to pay for the ticket. Unfortunately, he was
> unable to get a visa and was out a significant amount of money and had
> asked if the board would pay for the visa application in lieu of the plane
> ticket. Meaning if we were already going to pay for a larger sum of money
> anyway it should be OK to pay for the smaller amount.
>
My approved sponsorship was for 1000+ USD if I remember correctly. I spent 73
USD on visa fees and I spent 306 USD on flights reaching the Embassy. How
does my expenses exceed the sponsorship amount? This was all clearly
mentioned on the thread where I asked for reimbursement too.
> The difference between your situation and Diego is that Diego isn't going
> anywhere and is out of money.
>
I honestly *needed* 130 USD on the upcoming berlin hackfest but I was told
the sponsorship is to *help* and not to cover everything. I had to borrow
it from someone and now I in debt. Is my reason not good enough for a 130
USD more?
> The second difference is that Diego only applied for the visa because I
> asked him to come to the west coast hackfest. So it wasn't even his idea
> or his initiative but mine. That's why it was looked at as a special case.
>
I did *not* apply to come to Docs Hackfest, Kat told me to. She was my
mentor then. I then applied for sponsorship after she instructed me to do
so. I was contributing to GNOME 2 months then, I had no idea about
sponsored events. Why wasn't I special case?
All I ask of the board is not to bend rules. Whatever revision on the
reimbursement policy, please bring it in force *first* and then entertain
cases that occur once the policy is in working, not before. It is unfair to
me and to everyone who lost money due to visa rejections.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/attachments/20140426/d2c136ce/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
------------------------------
End of foundation-list Digest, Vol 120, Issue 30
************************************************