1. Having this discussion *now* is just hugely counterproductive. This conversation should have been had, preferably in person and with abundant social lubricants, last year after the end of the previous GSoC. In that way, we wouldn't have all this drama on top of the stress of doing a GSoC and meeting its deadlines etc. 2. Could you please focus on the problem, and not on people? Nothing good will come out of personal judgments, insults, disrespect, etc. It doesn't even matter if whoever is saying those things is "right". Abusing other people helps promote even more community division by presenting a choice of *who* (instead of *what*) is right. 3. Could the interested parties set up an N-way conference call or some such, and reach a conclusion in a reasonable manner? Email is horrible for these kinds of discussions, it's extremely easy to end up with exaggerated interpretations of what is said and then we all get to see flame wars that end nowhere --- like the flame wars on the same subject ***last year***. Write minutes, report the progress in a neutral manner on the ESUG mailing list, whatever you choose --- just be sensible and professional. If you recall, we have seen an extremely good example of how to deal with uncomfortable situations in the ESUG mailing list not long ago. It can be done. 4. 4000 EUR is not peanuts, I agree. I will also point out that 4000 EUR doesn't pay for a lot of our time when we measure it by the measuring stick of consulting hours. I strongly suspect we are wasting a lot more money than 4000 EUR with this endless controversy. The current process for dealing with this issue will, at best, result in a Pyrrhic victory. Think about it, even on the "cheap side" of 1 EUR / minute, don't you think we have collectively spent far more than 67 hours on this stuff without even getting close to a resolution? Think about it: 67 hours is less than 2 weeks. I don't think we can afford that kind of "success". On 2/10/14 1:19 , Joachim Tuchel wrote:

Phil,

That's your opinion. I don't think money of sponsors should be spent with such an attitude.

Unfortunately, I do not fully unerstand what Janko is saying and the links he provided don't help me really. Is he saying that the ESUG board ignored the vote of gsoc mentors on how much to pay to students in the additional projects? Was that money spent unequally and does Janko say this was unfair and does he say the projects that got more did so because they were pharo projects?

If so, this needs some explanation. If it's not true, we can go on and say the board did it with the members' placet. Then we can shrug and say "so what?" Thats what we have a motivated and elected board for.

I agree with you in so far as this is a really bad moment in time for this discussion. If all of tgis means gsoc comes to a halt for Smalltalk because we cannot apply in time, that would be really a pity.

As a sponsor, I'd like to know what Janko is really up to and if the way things went is okay, since I want our money to be spent for positive things, like the yearly conference and many other great things esug is doing.

As a sponsor, I wouldn't want to see anybody in the board to think about our money the way you expresss it here. Even if Esug is a european organization, it has very limited financial abilities, and 4000 euros thrown away or used unethically is not peanuts.

Joachim

phil@highoctane.be schrieb:

Guys,

From the outside it just looks like a couple of spoiled kids battling in the kindergarten.

All of this is not moving Smalltalk and Pharo any single bit forward. Backwards, there is a fair chance.

Now, could you take this discussion elsewhere? Pick up a phone and talk.

Who cares if anyone is right? Oh yeah, EUR 4K, what a huge amount to fight over for an European org... (rolleyes).

Phil

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse@gmail.com <mailto:luc.fabresse@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Janko,

I do not have all numbers at hand now but in 2013 there were 4 extra-GSOC but we paid only 3 because one student gave up (Jean-Baptiste Beuzelin). So yes you are probably right that it remains money if we integrate last year BUT we were willing to spend it.

Luc

2014-02-09 Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si <mailto:janko.mivsek@eranova.si>>:

Dear all,

First to Luc: from your numbers it is clear that you are not to be blamed on anything, because you were obviously misinformed and misguided.

Facts namely are:

1. GSoC mentors decided to pay extra stipendiums 3000 USD [1] while ESUG without approval paid 2000 more, 5000 USD, without any report back to GSoC mentors,

2. GSoC mentors decided to add past GSoC2012 amount to the pool for paying extra projects [2][3].

Calculation (without the Summit expenses) therefore is:

Income: GSoC 2012 13x 500 = 6.500 USD GSoC 2013 13x 500 = 6.500 USD ------------------------------ 13.000 USD

Expenses: Extra stipendiums: 3x 3.000 = 9.000 USD

Difference: + 4.000 USD

If ESUG would follow the decisions of GSoC mentors it wouldn't loose any money but gain 4.000 USD.

Those that misinformed and misguided you needs therefore to apologize to you Luc, to the GSoC mentors and to me as admin!

Janko

[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/smalltalk-gsoc-mentors/Yrlj8dIgGPg [2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/smalltalk-gsoc-mentors/WwnxpkXzAB8 [3] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/smalltalk-gsoc-mentors/tR44jdPT5Hw

Dne 09. 02. 2014 17:26, piše Luc Fabresse: > Hi all, > > ------------ > FACTS > > As you all know, I am the ESUG treasurer. > So please find the numbers attached for the ESUG support of GSOC > projects in 2013. > > ESUG sponsored 3 "extra-GSOC" meaning extra slots not accepted by Google. > In the file it is: Alejandro Infante, Pablo Estefo and Benjamin Arezki. > > All in all we paid: > - 3695EUR (~5000USD at that time i.e. same cost as a regular GSOC) each > projects > - Serge trip to Mentor summit > > And we received 5552EUR from Google > > so yes we lost ~6582EUR > That is easy 13*500 USD would only cover 1 plain extra-Gsoc and we > sponsorized 3. > > I also think that it is important to send someone to the GSoc mentor > summit because it participates to the fact that Google recognizes ESUG > ang gives slots the next year. > > It is alos important to note dates. > ESUG paid first and then has been refund by Google. > It would not be possible to do it without ESUG. > > ------------ > FROM HERE, MY POINT OF VIEW ON THIS STORY: > > As some of you know, I doing the ESUG treasury stuff on my *own* time > and it takes a lot! > I am doing it because I strongly believe that Smalltalk (all falvors!) > is a really great language that should be more widespread. > > I also completely open to discussions. > The ESUG board can also explain its actions and even money status. > I can do errors too. > So if Janko wants some details on GSOC related money, JUST ASK! > > I cannot admit that: > > - Janko wrote about some money accusation. This is directly directed > against the treasurer so me. > And honestly, just reading again that I am biased and that I hide or > steal money make me think that I should better quit. > > - Janko asked for apologies! what is that? even if I would have done a > mistake (and ESUG did not loose money), YOU STILL MUST THANK ME for > DOING THIS BORING TASK! and then I can correct mistakes if any > > - People wants an answer fast, this conversation started yesterday and I > am spending my week-end with my kids > > > I am really fed up with this kind of attitude. > Stop accuse, better ask, discuss and we will solve the problems together > if any. > But I think it will never happen... > > #Luc > The disgusted Treasurer of ESUG who will finish his week-end in bad mood >

-- Janko Mivšek Smalltalk GSoC Admin Team