Fellow manjaro users, As you may have heard, our long time contributor and friend Jonathon is no longer part of the Manjaro team. He has been a great asset to the team and over the seven years has done much for packaging, communication with the Arch team and especially for this community. He will be missed. The inciting incident for the conflict eventually leading to this was a hardware purchase for one of the team members, but the disagreement was not caused because the purchase was inappropr...
Where do you get the idea there was a misuse of funds? I quote from the post you linked to yourself:
The inciting incident for the conflict eventually leading to this was a hardware purchase for one of the team members, but the disagreement was not caused because the purchase was inappropriate. Everyone involved was mostly on the same page about how the money should be spent. The actual disagreements were about the process of allocating the funds.
We want to be clear, there has not been any financial misuse of the donation funds. We are committed to ensuring that this will remain so.
The problem even with this version is that they are doing a bit of a two-step, saying the funds were not technically misused, but they don’t appear to be disputing that the request was handled in a way that didn’t comply with their own procedures. By way of illustration, it’s like if money goes mysteriously missing, but then shows back up in the right place. No technical harm done, but an alarming breakdown in procedure just the same. Maintaining an integrity of procedure and handling concerns in a way that shows you take them serious is critical to raising yourself above suspicion. If they don’t want to follow their own procedures, they should thank their treasurer for raising the issue, work with them to discuss a way to change the procedure, and then change the procedure to one that they won’t ignore.
Jonathon (everyone seems to get his name wrong) also doesn’t mention the misuse of funds, tho. He’s arguing that this payout wasn’t following their written reimbursement policy. Which is absolutely a fair argument to be had, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not misuse of funds.
Nothing? Do you consider misuse of OpenCollective funds and silencing and removing core project members for doing their jobs “nothing”?
deleted by creator
What is your interpretation of the situation?
Where do you get the idea there was a misuse of funds? I quote from the post you linked to yourself:
You are quoting from one side of the story.
The problem even with this version is that they are doing a bit of a two-step, saying the funds were not technically misused, but they don’t appear to be disputing that the request was handled in a way that didn’t comply with their own procedures. By way of illustration, it’s like if money goes mysteriously missing, but then shows back up in the right place. No technical harm done, but an alarming breakdown in procedure just the same. Maintaining an integrity of procedure and handling concerns in a way that shows you take them serious is critical to raising yourself above suspicion. If they don’t want to follow their own procedures, they should thank their treasurer for raising the issue, work with them to discuss a way to change the procedure, and then change the procedure to one that they won’t ignore.
deleted by creator
Jonathon (everyone seems to get his name wrong) also doesn’t mention the misuse of funds, tho. He’s arguing that this payout wasn’t following their written reimbursement policy. Which is absolutely a fair argument to be had, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not misuse of funds.
deleted by creator