On Monday, October 06, 2014 23:26:25 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 06/10/14 at 20:38 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:38:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > >On 06/10/14 at 12:07 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > >> Both 2008 and 2011 are more than a year ago, so I don't see any > > >> justification for making this change and would like to see it reverted. > > > > > >There were other occurences of reimbursement requests coming very late > > >recently. It seems that some people wait until the deadline to do > > >such tasks. > > > > > >Also, I don't think that 3 months is unreasonable. My employer applies a > > >two-week soft deadline, and a one month hard deadline for travel > > >reimbursements. > > > > So that's a stupidly tight setup on their part, so what...? What > > actual *problem* are you trying to solve in Debian by arbitrarily > > reducing the limit for us? > > Given that we have no clear process to track reimbursement requests over > time, late reimbursement requests often involve digging through email > archives to understand their status. > > I agree that improving the processes (using e.g. RT) would be better, > but this hasn't happened yet. If you want to join the auditor@ team to > make that happen, you're welcome. But I am already spending far more > time than I would like on financial stuff. > > Also, I really don't see why you feel that it's necessary to have the > possibility to wait for a year before submitting a reimbursement > request. I'm still quite confused about how people submitting expense reimbursement requests three and seven years after the fact causes you to think the deadline should be three months instead of twelve? It certainly strikes me as unrelated and arbitrary. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.