Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014

In regards to this issue: I hope the board, to stymie discontent &
demonstrate equity, will settle on an equal solution for both Diego and
Sindhu, both outstanding members of our community.

With that said I really don't care to argue, but since nobody else has
called you out: nitpicks below & inline.

Zeeshan, I found your post to be very aggravating (even though you
weren't speaking /to/ me) due to [what I interpreted as] your nitpicking
& condescending explanations (one might even use the term
'mansplaining'), & nihilistic/keep-the-status-quo attitude.

On 04/26/2014 11:10 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
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>

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: Why didn't the rest of the board respond

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

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

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'.

Yes quite obviously -- 'low on cash' is much shorter to type than "a
temporary lack of reserves due to processing the funds for the Outreach
Program for Women (OPW)" -- everyone knows what what Sindhu is referring to.

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.

Sindhu does not harm anyone in pointing out the discrepancy between her
treatment [re visa aid] and Diego's. To say that highlighting
discrepancies is "unfair" serves to shame people for advocating for
their own empowerment.

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.

Are you implying that since Sindhu got paid $5k to work for 1 summer
that she should be content with that, and that it is unfair and
ungrateful of her to ask for more money (even if it is just to get
equity with the aid others got)?

Do you forget that you have the privilege to get funded by Red Hat to
work on GNOME full time? (While most likely making > 3x the payrate than
what Sindhu received for her work.)

[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.

It's not unfair, as if it's just a flip of a coin, and we just must live
with the entropy of the universe. To say OPW is "unfair" is an insulting
simplification of the the intersecting complexities involved.

oh what luck, "Out of 181 applicants the GNOME project had for Google
Summer of Code in 2006, none were women" -- better not complain about
it, or else that would be *unfair* </sarcasm>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]