Again, this ticket is inaccessible, maybe this is an update and maybe it
isn't :).

I have been experimenting with Transferwise as an alternative
reimbursement platform. It has been hit and miss, just like Paypal.

In general we can consider any platform that is:

1) Reliable and trusted.
2) Able to funded via a Credit Card
3) Relatively easy to use with minimal fuss.

Two of those criteria are subjective, not objective. I suggest that we
give the FCaIC freedom to choose an appropriate reimbursement
methodology. Specifically, I believe we should adopt a project-wide
reimbursement strategy that says:

When you spend money on behalf of the Fedora Project you are agreeing to
meet the following conditions:

1) The expenditure must have been pre-approved. This approval must be
from the appropriate working group.
2) The expenditure must be supported by appropriate receipts. If you
are worried about the quality or type of receipts available, consult
with the FCaIC before spending the money.
3) You will be reimbursed via Paypal in USD. If Paypal is not available
in your home country, you should work out a reimbursement process with
the FCaIC before spending the money. The FCaIC will be as open to
alternative reimbursement methods as possible, however they are not
required to select any alternative if they do not feel it is
appropriate.

In general, the FCaIC is asked to consider the following:

1) Speed of processing the reimbursement (faster is better)
2) Fees associated with the reimbursement (less is better and it is
assumed the project will cover all mandatory fees)
3) The currency of the reimbursement (matching the currency of the
expense or the home currency of the receiver is better).

The final decision rests with the FCaIC.

This is a first draft.

regards,

bex

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Giannis Konstantinidis wrote:

giannisk reported a new issue against the project: tickets that you are
following:
``
In EMEA, Paypal is the only supported reimbursement method. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/EMEA/Reimbursement#Methods_of_Reimbursements

Paypal, however, does not work in all countries. There have been many
cases where contributors often struggle to get reimbursed.

We should consider alternative reimbursement methods.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/tickets/issue/76

+1 to Brian's proposal.

Thank you both.

Brian, +1 regarding the proposal and criteria.

I have just reached out to the Fedora ambassadors (via the mailing list) and invited them to describe current problems they're facing with Paypal as well as suggest alternatives. Wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Reimbursements/Issues

I will also make sure to keep you posted.

about LATAM, people expect faster reimbursement no matter if its paypal or not.

I'm calling for lazy consensus votes on this one. We need at least three +1 votes from the Council (we have two already presuming Brian is +1 to own proposal) and no -1s by December 12, 2016. Thanks!

+1 but with the following caveats (suggestions?):

• the spreadsheet / wiki page/ whatever of providers is maintained, accessible, w/ a "yes" or "no" to ease effort involved in knowing about alternatives
• the final language gets a new ticket for council vote

@langdon

Can you expand on this comment?

the spreadsheet / wiki page/ whatever of providers is maintained, accessible, w/ a "yes" or "no" to ease effort involved in knowing about alternatives

Do you mean a list of known rejected options and known accepted options should be maintained to stop constant rediscussion?

3) The currency of the reimbursement (matching the currency of the
expense or the home currency of the receiver is better).
The final decision rests with the FCaIC.

I'm +1 here too, but I believe we can drop the point above. People agree to get reimbursed in US $, and it will always add fees if we need to change it i.e. into local currency of the receiver. Remember that when contributors file tickets to ask for reimbursements, they need to ask in US $ too. However, if the receiver wants to chnage the US $ into another currency, Paypal will do that. Otherwise just keep the US $ account in Paypal and pay your next expenses directly with dollars.

3) The currency of the reimbursement (matching the currency of the
expense or the home currency of the receiver is better).
The final decision rests with the FCaIC.

I'm +1 here too, but I believe we can drop the point above. People agree to get reimbursed in US $, and it will always add fees if we need to change it i.e. into local currency of the receiver. Remember that when contributors file tickets to ask for reimbursements, they need to ask in US $ too. However, if the receiver wants to chnage the US $ into another currency, Paypal will do that. Otherwise just keep the US $ account in Paypal and pay your next expenses directly with dollars.

I believe we should leave the default as "You accept that you may be reimbursed in USD. You may be offered other options, but you may not. You cannot demand reimbursement in any currency other than USD."

However, I think leaving the flexibilty for the FCAIC to reimburse in other currencies when it has no net real effect on Fedora and is more convenient for the contributor is just being nice. For example, if the currency in CountryA is not supported by Paypal, but using Transferwise would allow the person to receive their local working currency at no significant cost in terms of effort or money we should do this, at the FCAIC's discretion.

As someone who doesn't use his currency of reimbursement as his functional currency, I have struggled to ensure I don't lose money every time I spend money on behalf of some organizations. They have all understood that I have to pay my bills in my functional currency regardless of what their functional currency is. We should have the same concept.

I believe we should leave the default as "You accept that you may be reimbursed in USD. You may be offered other options, but you may not. You cannot demand reimbursement in any currency other than USD."

+1

@bex sorry.. didn't see the q to me. Yes, that is what I meant. However, it also allows for periodic review of the accepted/rejected as some of these providers disappear, get acquired, get shady, etc.

I don't think this got the required number of votes. Can we either revote or bring this up in the next meeting please.

There was some discussion and +1s with caveats; can we have a new exact proposal of what's to be voted on?

@bex In our last meeting, you promised to either add activity to this ticket or close it as deferred.

@mattdm I think leaving it open as a tab in my browser should count as activity ...

closing as deferred