The receipt for hotel rooms must clearly show the dates of travel, so
Conservancy can verify that the dates of the stay matches the dates of the
event attended, and also to verify that no food or service charges were
included, since food and service charges go against the ME&I per diem charges
rather than the hotel room charges.
Based on advice from Conservancy's Treasurer, Conservancy will not require
that conference-provided food be formally accounted for in per diem
reports. However, travelers should consider these issues when submitting,
and be honest about what they actually spent on food, rather than seeking
the maximum per diem allowed.
Based on discussion with Conservancy's Treasurer, I reworked this section
to clearly state that Conservancy can approve higher rates for hotels, but
that such approval should be done before travel begins. I also cut down
some of the extra detail in this section that I think is obvious (i.e.,
how to use the GSA website).
I believe it is important to be very specific about reimbursement for
travel as this is probably one of the moret common forms of financial
transactions in many projects. It would be unfortunate if PLC members
were made ineligible (or unduly burdened) in requesting travel funding
on an equal footing with other project members.
We've explicitly stated now that legitimate reimbursements are not
compensation.
As a practical matter, this one is difficult may be difficult for
Sugar Labs to achieve (particularly, "permitted to hear") as our PLC
discussions are held in an open IRC forum and openness is a
philosophical position within our project. Can we narrow this
restriction for PLC members to "participate" while allowing
"hearing" on an equal footing with all project members?
This change reworks that section to allow for after-the-fact reading of
logs and/or minutes by the conflicted Person, but does not allow them to
attend the meeting except to disclose facts, etc.
While "available bandwidth" is common enough jargon in our community,
perhaps this should be changed to "interest and availability".
We accepted the change since "bandwidth" is indeed jargon.
In theory, engagement in the proposal drafting process might allow a
conflicted person to "tip the scales", thereby justifying their
exclusion. However; in practice, it may be that the conflicted
person is the only PLC member with the requisite technical expertise
or situational awareness to draft a suitably detailed proposal. Is
it possible to acknowledge that the rest of the PLC should generally
be capable of taking advantage of the conflicted persons special
knowledge and contributions to the drafting without allowing the
creation of "an uneven playing field".
This change allows the conflicted PLC Person to "disclose material facts
and to respond to questions" to the drafting process, but does not allow
them to do the drafting themselves.
