No, you said "from the place where I come from obscurity helps with aOn 6 June 2014 07:38, Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano fidencio org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:20 A
>> >> 3) Check if the values spent are okay
>> >
>> > Here I am unsure what you are asking for. I published summaries in the
>> > past regarding to GUADEC, for example (Sorry for my English, it was
>> > rustier than now):
>> >
>> > http://calcifer.org/notes/2009/05/status-of-guadecs-sponsorship-requests.html
>> >
>> > http://calcifer.org/notes/2010/04/guadec-status-of-travel-sponsorship-requests.html
>>
>> Also at:
>> http://blogs.gnome.org/kittykat/2013/06/07/sponsorships-for-guadec-2013/
>
> Thanks for the link, Ekaterina!
>
>> > If you are asking for details of how much we have sponsored per every
>> > individual, it was decided at the very beginning to keep that
>> > information private. It was also part of the announcement (see the
>> > links below):
>> >
>> > "Any information you send the TC will be private"
>> >
>> > If we provide the names and numbers, there will be missing contextual
>> > information to explain some things. And this could refrain people of
>> > requesting sponsorship. So, there is a trade-off between transparency
>> > and privacy.
>> >
>> > And this is mostly the case for GUADEC and GNOME.Asia. For hackfests,
>> > you still have the wiki page that has that information. Something that
>> > might change once we start having a fixed amount for the hackfests
>> > altogether.
>> >
>> >> Although I'm not the one who would like to dig into these data, I'd
>> >> feel
>> >> really more comfortable knowing that I can do this, if I'd like to.
>> >> Does it make sense? Am I asking too much?
>> >
>> >> Please, as I told before, I'm kind-of new here. So, If this discussion
>> >> already happened in the past, please, point me some links and I'll be
>> >> happy
>> >> reading them and trying to understand why this process is not
>> >> transparent
>> >> for all the Foundation members. (Seriously, I'm not trying to put my
>> >> finger
>> >> in anyone's face about how the money is or should be spend. Just would
>> >> love
>> >> to understand how the process works)
>> >
>> > The Travel Committee was proposed and discussed in 2009. You can see the
>> > original proposal in the following link:
>> >
>> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-February/msg00007.html
>> >
>> > This was lengthly discussed, see for example the archives of February
>> > 2009:
>> >
>> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-February/thread.html
>> >
>> > And you can see a follow-up on March on a related topic ("Sponsoring
>> > hackfests"):
>> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-March/thread.html
>> >
>> > And the announcement in April:
>> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-April/msg00012.html
>> >
>> >> With my thoughts and my doubts, yesterday I approached the Treasurer
>> >> (who
>> >> is also member of the Travel Committee) and asked her about those
>> >> things
>> >> and I'd like to share my disappointment with the answers.
>> >> [comments deleted]
>> >> After that, I was told to raise it with the Foundation, and that's the
>> >> motivation for my email :-)
>>
>> There is indeed lack of context here. You strongly implied that the
>> board and the travel-committee was corrupt, which is an opinion that
>> you have every right to hold. If you do truly think that this is the
>> case, then it is my opinion that you should indeed raise the matter
>> with the membership rather than keeping quiet.
>
> Wait a bit. Asking for information means that I imply that board and
> travel-committee is corrupt?
> If yes, sorry the Board, sorry Travel Committee. I've noticed that I think
> both of you are corrupt!
lot of bad things". I try to assume that people mean well, but I find
it very difficult to read anything positive from that statement.
> Come on, Ekaterina. We know that everyone is equal for GNOME Foundation andIf anyone holds my personal information which I gave under the belief
> we know we had problems about decisions being taken differently for the same
> situation and different people. Is it corruption? I don't think so.
> What I do think so is that having every detail opened would help people to
> understand this kind of situation without have to argue with you and hear
> those kind of answers.
that it would not be shared, then I should hope that they would fight
to keep my information private, regardless of who was asking for it
(government, a company or another individual).
Please read what I wrote again, I did not accuse you of anything. My
>> Regarding the travel committee issues and taking quotes out of
>> context, I would prefer to be clear on the matter:
>>
>> You asked me where the amounts of sponsorship were recorded, I
>> responded by saying on hackfest pages and in board minutes.
>>
>> You asked me for exact amounts that every individual has been
>> sponsored for, I responded by explaining that you can make an educated
>> estimate from the above two resources.
>>
>> You asked me why the exact amounts of sponsorship for each individual
>> are not published, I explained that one of the reasons is that they
>> would make little sense without context and context is not ours to
>> publish. I also assured you that they are recorded properly, as that
>> seemed to be of concern to you, and the board also has access to them
>> in case the board ever wants to audit them.
>>
>> I believe you when you say that you have no agenda, but you have yet
>> to give me a good reason for telling the world (you were asking me in
>> a public IRC channel) on which service to try guessing a travel
>> committee member's password
>
> Come on. Asking where are those info is "try guessing a travel committee
> member's password"?
> Now I'm really surprised, again!
point is to highlight that revealing where the information is stored
makes that information less secure.
I still prefer to not answer this question as you have still not given
>> and where to look for sponsorship details which, as Germán pointed out,
>> the travel committee does promise to
>> keep private.
>
> You could have answered this, right? But you took the non-polite way.
a good reason to do so.