I agree with you Sindhu, I lost $231 (Rs 14000/) in visa process + ticket cancellation. It pains when I think back that I could not make it to the winter docs heckfest.
-Shobha On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:46 PM, <foundation-list-requ...@gnome.org> wrote: > 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-requ...@gnome.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > foundation-list-ow...@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)" <zeesha...@gnome.org> > To: Sindhu S <sind...@live.in> > Cc: GNOME Foundation <foundation-list@gnome.org> > Subject: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014 > Message-ID: > < > caaa3hfotndofkmnk-puyeeixdzb3ntmkxdmf2pyri9a3lfm...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Sindhu S <sind...@live.in> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya < > mari...@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 bo...@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 <s...@ramkrishna.me> > To: Sindhu S <sind...@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-laztfqgcnolgby5qgpn...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Apr 25, 2014 9:26 AM, "Sindhu S" <sind...@live.in> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya < > mari...@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 bo...@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 <sind...@live.in> > To: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeesha...@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...@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 <sind...@live.in> > To: Sriram Ramkrishna <s...@ramkrishna.me> > Cc: Foundation-List <foundation-list@gnome.org> > Subject: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of March 25th, 2014 > Message-ID: > <CAAjia4bX6S4j5GNbdsA2SddyySURjuy2JyF=mzsd8FL9= > fc...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna <s...@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 > ************************************************ >
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
