[haiku] Re: Tentative approval for paying for the fliers
- From: "Jorge G. Mare" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:46:35 -0800
Hi Ingo,
Ingo Weinhold wrote:
On 2009-12-22 at 16:50:28 [+0100], Jorge G. Mare <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
So, I am far from being a stranger, nor am I asking for a blank check.
You're definitely not a stranger. Still you're asking for a blank check. Or
how would you call committing to pay for something yet unknown?
It is not something unknown. As I said here...
//www.freelists.org/post/haiku/Haiku-flier-reprint
the plan is to reprint the existing flier which you can see here...
http://www.haiku-os.org/files/screenshots/2008-07-26_flyer_LW-2008.png
..."with some updated info and a new look more atone with the website
theme" (quoting myself).
I have also provided all the specifications of the print job (size,
colors, paper types, etc.) and a wide array of choices in terms of cost.
Thus, saying that I am asking for a blank check is really a
mis-characterization.
Is it that unreasonable for Haiku, Inc.'s BOD member, who are responsible
for money donated by the community, to at least require a look at the final
design before committing to spending that money? Wouldn't it even be
irresponsible not to do that?
It is the unfair treatment based on a double standard that I find
unreasonable.
Let's see: Traveling costs, event support, purchase of books or hardware.
Mmh, could it be that in all these cases it was well-defined what the money
would be spent for, while printing a flier with yet unknown content is not?
This is far from reality. The expectation of a return on the investment
is always there, for *any* expenditure regardless of its nature;
otherwise, the money would not be committed. But the reality is that
even for expenditures on traveling costs, event support, purchase of
books or hardware, you can't know in advance what that return will be.
You can have an idea, but you don't know for sure.
The default at Haiku has always been to assume that the beneficiary will
do a good job at a conference, turn his studying of a book into useful
code, or use the hardware to code for Haiku. In other words, trust was
put on the person.
In this particular case, I don't see this happening; this is what makes
me feel singled out and discriminated.
Is the flier not deemed to be a good return on the investment?
I'm sure it is. Not being associated with Haiku, Inc. in any way, that's
only what I'm guessing from the public mails I've read. Do you have reason
to assume that members of the BOD do not deem the flier to be a good
investment?
Yes: their reluctance to make a commitment, which I can only take as a
vote of no confidence.
Please, help me understand, because I am really feeling singled out here
in a very discriminatory way, and this is not helping my motivation.
I'd say you're singling yourself out. A tentative approval for financing
the fliers has been given and everyone agrees that your track record is
excellent. If anyone else on this list does not find this enough of a vote
of confidence to start with the design, please shout.
I am afraid a lot of people are giving lip service here; the truth is
that actions are not in sync with the words. If it were true that
everyone had so much confidence in what I do, why is there a need to
apply a separate standard that does all the contrary to showing
confidence and giving reassurance?
Mmh, the "there is every intention to do so" part sounds pretty confident,
if you ask me.
The questions that plague me: Why would you ask of Haiku, Inc. to forgo
their responsibility towards the donors and give you a blank check?
If you put it that way, then I would have to say that they have always
forgone their responsibility towards the donors, because they never
applied this criteria before.
Why are
a tentative approval and a general epxression of confidence in your skills
not enough for you?
Because, as I said, the actions contradict the words.
Cheers,
Jorge/aka Koki
Other related posts:
