jan i wrote:
On 3 January 2014 23:31, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
2c) Not have alternate sources of funding
I agree, but that needs to be more precise, otherwise "alternate sources"
include my bank account.
Well, it means: if someone else is paying for your travel and hotel
expenses, the project won't reimburse you; if money is coming out of
your pocket (or bank account, or credit card, or debit card... do not
take this too literally), you are eligible. So it's "funding" as
"someone else paying for your expenses".
2d) Apply for funding on the dev list, stating the amount one wish to have
reimbursed (up to 200 EUR, but less if one spends less; eligible expenses
are travel + hotels; if expenses are still unknown, I suggest applying for
200 EUR and then the reimbursement will be done according to the actual
expenses)
It might be a matter of wording, but this is not "flat imbursement", that
is "max. imbursement".
I agree we need control, but its either "flat" == fixed or against
expenses. The lazy consensus was for flat reimbursement.
"Flat" means 200 EUR, "reimbursement" means that you actually spent
them. So, drop 2d and the related complexity. But I think that the
Apache treasurer will want to see the tickets/invoices/receipts in any
case. So keep in mind that, if the treasurer believes that he is
"reimbursing" an amount that exceeds the actual expenses, he may reduce
it and just ensure that all the speaker's expenses are covered. In your
case (double room in hotel), I expect that the hotel costs will simply
be divided by two in the treasurer's calculations.
2f) If requested by the treasurer, present copies of the relevant invoices.
See topic on flat reimbursement.
For transparency, we will need to have tickets/invoices/receipts
available. If in your case these apply to both you and your wife, you
don't need special provisions: the treasurer will take care of that.
I think its important that we apply a 4 eye principle, meaning those that
get reimbursement cannot be the contact to the treasurer, that way there
can be no dispute about misuse (which I understand have earlier been the
case).
There has never been misuse of funds. And there has never been the doubt
that the project misused funds. The check about respecting the ASF's
charity status is about applying Apache's internal rules and ensuring,
for example, that reimbursements are not misused as concealed payments
(if we "reimbursed" 10,000 EUR or 10,000$ to someone to go to FOSDEM,
this would be problematic since it is a clearly excessive amount of
money compared to the average expenses). In our case we are just giving
a contribution toward expenses (like we did in the one other occasion,
ApacheCon 2012, for a couple speakers coming from outside Europe), so
there is no dispute about possible misuse.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
