Prospective board members: travel sponsoring.

Rob Clark robdclark at
Mon Mar 18 13:51:35 UTC 2019

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 7:55 AM Luc Verhaegen <libv at> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 07:24:48AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:25 PM Luc Verhaegen <libv at> wrote:
> > >
> > > The board meeting log of august 16th says the following:
> > > (
> > >
> > > "Since the paper committee had to reject lots of talks this year (35
> > > submissions for 18 slots) board discussed how to still make it possible
> > > for anyone to attend with modest means - travel sponsoring is coupled to
> > > accepted talks. Board decides to extend offering travel sponsoring to
> > > anyone who submits a talk proposal."
> > >
> > > This seemed to have happened well _after_ the deadline for talk
> > > submission occured, precluding a lot of people from applying for such a
> > > generous offer.
> >
> > The intention was to allow people to attend XDC even if the only
> > reason their talk was not accepted was that there were not enough
> > slots relative to the # of submissions.  It wasn't intended as a
> > freebee, ie. submit a crap talk that wouldn't be accepted anyways, yet
> > still get travel sponsorship.
> >
> > So the fact the decision was taken after the CFP deadline is
> > immaterial.  In fact, it would have been weird to make it before we
> > had too many talk submissions.
> True, but then the question there becomes, was anyone sponsored after
> the fact, after the rules have changed?

I'm not sure why that becomes "the question"..

> >
> > > And it is generous; i will now definitely submit a talk for 2019, as i
> > > am bound to find something tiny to code that i can give a talk on.
> > >
> > > I also think that i have not seen who has benefitted from this
> > > sponsorship money that was spent, or the companies that they work for (i
> > > trust that the answer to the latter is "none"). Have i missed or
> > > overlooked this?
> >
> > We vote on travel approvals, it should all be in the meeting minutes.
> There is surprisingly little detail in both:
> and
> The question of transparency comes up again here...
> "<danvet> the small extension to include all who proposed a talk (not
> just accepted), with the wildcard to let us reject as we see fit"
> and
> "<danvet> tlwoerner, includes a "at the board's discretion" or similar
> lingo"
> Everything of that seems to be on board@ and amazingly little of that
> seems visible to members.

I'm not sure how you conclude that.. all I see on board@ is logistical
related stuff (ie. submitting receipts and that sort of thing), no
decision making.

It looks like in the end (and the treasurer can correct me if I'm
wrong, I don't have access to the ledger), we approved travel for 6
speakers and jake (lwn).  And we did not approve any additional travel
sponsorship for XDC2018 after extending the travel policy[1].  This is
all in the IRC logs and meeting minutes.

[1] Although we might in future years if we have a similar situation
of having more qualified talk submissions than slots.  And, IMHO, this
is a good thing.. if someone has been doing some interesting work, but
we don't have enough slots for them to present, they are still likely
to contribute to the hallway track.


> Luc Verhaegen.

More information about the events mailing list