Re: Agenda for board meeting on July 1sd

Hi Sindhu,

The board consisted of a different set of people in 2013-2014, so they reacted differently when faced with a 
question about a visa reimbursement. This prompted reviewing the current policy, which is what we are working 
on now.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sindhu S" <sindhus live in>
To: "Stormy Peters" <stormy peters gmail com>
Cc: "Foundation List" <foundation-list gnome org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 9:25:03 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda for board meeting on July 1sd

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Stormy Peters < stormy peters gmail com > wrote: 

The board is not bending the rules. The board sets the rules. They can decide whether to decide on each visa 
reimbursement individually or to set a policy or to ask the travel committee to set a policy. They can also 
as a group decide on any exceptions. 

It's perfectly reasonable for them to decide on one visa reimbursement individually before there is a policy 
if for some reason they are not ready to decide on the policy. Moving forward, regardless of the policy, 
there might be good reasons to handle cases as exceptions. 

There already was a rule in place that visa fees will not be reimbursed. Board *still* hasn't unambiguously 
said that my case was unexceptional (when I had applied to visa reimbursement in 2013) as compared to Deigo's 
in 2014. I only wanted the board to arrive at a conclusive decision about visa reimbursements before it 
dispersed out reimbursements. It must have brought the new policies in action and then acted according to 
them (whether they chose to reimburse visas prior to the policy or not). 

If board can treat cases as "exceptions", then it has and might favor members of the community who are 
senior, experienced. What good is a rule then? What good is a rule if there is meritocracy in deciding how a 
rule is enforced? 

foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list gnome org

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