[FAmSCo] Paypal fee with reimbursements

[Truong Anh. Tuan]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "inode0" <inode0 at gmail.com>
> To: "Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee" <famsco at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:59:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [FAmSCo] Paypal fee with reimbursements
> 
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Christoph Wickert
> <christoph.wickert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 02.03.2013, 09:34 -0600 schrieb inode0:
> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Christoph Wickert
> >> <christoph.wickert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Am Samstag, den 02.03.2013, 08:28 +0100 schrieb Buddhike Kurera:
> >> >> Hi All,
> >> >>
> >> >> There is a problem with PayPal reimbursement method, it associates
> >> >> with other payment methods as well. The fee they charge.
> >> >> In Paypal there are two methods either the sender or the receiver pays
> >> >> the fee. At this moment when reimbursing it is selected that the
> >> >> receiver pays the fee.
> >>
> >> I wasn't aware of this problem as in NA we can pay the finance charge
> >> as the payer so the recipient receives the correct amount (unless I
> >> goof it up).
> >
> > Yes, in NA even regular PayPal accounts have this option, in Germany and
> > other European countries it is only available for corporate users.
> >
> >> > I already brought up this topic on this list a while back and discussed
> >> > it with Ruth at FUDCon EMEA last year. Here is what we came up with:
> >> >      1. The option to have the sender pay the fees is not available in
> >> >         some countries, e.g. in Germany. That's why Jörg cannot take
> >> >         over fees.
> >> >      2. He would need a corporate PayPal account, which requires him to
> >> >         have some kind of business. He doesn't have one, so the business
> >> >         would be Red Hat.
> >> >      3. Red Hat would have to get corporate accounts for all the CC
> >> >         holders, but both Legal and Finance departments have concerns
> >> >         about this.
> >>
> >> NA wouldn't need one but I don't see why we couldn't just do the
> >> adjustment ourselves. If the fee is 2% and the amount owed is X then
> >> make a payment in the amount of X+0.02/0.98*X which depending on
> >> rounding could miss by at most a penny I think. Similar calculations
> >> can be done for other fee amounts. Then we could report it as a
> >> reimbursement of X with a fee of 0.02/0.98*X if that suits finance ok.

This way should work fine.

> > I'm afraid it doesn't. One of the reasons that we use PayPal is that
> > finance accepts PayPal transactions as proof something has been paid.
> > But I guess that the amount needs to match exactly.
> 
> I guess I am not seeing the difference here. I overpay reimbursements
> now to include the finance charge. The only difference would be
> whether PayPal reports the overage as a finance charge or not and
> seriously the finance changes are so small how can anyone care where
> $1 to $3 is reported. I would be disappointed if this is something
> finance wouldn't agree to allow since they end up paying what they
> should be paying and our contributors are treated fairly.

I agree with this idea from inode0.
Rules are built by us (I mean both Fedora and Red Hat) and we can change
them if we see it's better.

I suggest CC holders (by regions, e.g. EMEA, APAC) could (are allowed to)
decide to pay some additional bucks to cover PayPal fees.

Kind regards,
Tuan