re: voting / polling was Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an Outreachy pilot

["Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>]

+ Daniel for his $0.02 on this.

So this process documented below worked pretty well at Fundraising where
if there is something major, we try and open open discussion on the item
with a preface such as "We have a deadline of X so I'd like to have
discussion for X days, then I will start a vote for X days and make my
decision based on your input."

But the votes are more like "polling" advisers than voting because the
buck stops with Gris as the VP since we aren't a PMC.

When Daniel and I were co-VPs in Fundraising but he was volunteer and I
was paid, we used this framework with pretty good success.  Since we
aren't a PMC setting expectations that Gris has to drive the boat but
try and navigate the PMC-like structure, I thought it would help to
paste this information

*

  *

    Discuss Voting:

      o

        Daniel brings up a concern with voting which I thought might be
        good to bang out something to get discussion started.


      o

        Right now Daniel and I are equals and technically the only two
        binding votes.  The rest of the committee is technically
        non-binding votes similar to the Incubator PMC.  The non-binding
        votes are typically not ignored.


      o

        For me, as a paid position, it's clearly Apache Way for me to
        defer on administrative matters to Daniel's vote hence Daniel
        can effectively veto everyone.


      o

        I thought it would be good to mention this in writing.  I know I
        brought it up yesterday and I think I mentioned it in the action
        items.


      o

        In general, think of our votes as information for Daniel to then
        be the final decision maker.  This is especially important in
        times like our monthly meetings if Daniel can't be present.

AI: Synopsis re Voting: Voting is just polling.  Make sure to record the
Motion for what is polled more clearly in the future.

*
Regards,
KAM

On 6/14/2019 8:06 AM, Griselda Cuevas wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone - It seems we have consensus to ask for budget we can
> dedicate to Outreachy interns regardless of the specifics on the
> execution. I'll go ahead and leave the item in the budget request for
> $30k. 
>
>
> I'm going to focus now on sending the budget request, after that I'd
> like to come back to find a champion (or champions) and hone a plan to
> achieve this.
>
>
> Thank you all. 
>
> G 
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 10:49, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until
>     Monday, but
>     wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today.
>
>     (FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer
>     than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to
>     dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible
>     in public.)
>
>     CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions.
>
>
>     # Summary
>
>        * I support the initiative overall.
>        * I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but
>        * I think external funding for interns should be the goal
>     (Option 2).
>        * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I
>     propose
>          PonyMail.
>        * This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra
>          staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate
>     5h/week)
>          because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load
>     we'd be
>          asking of them.
>        * My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be
>     Outreachy's
>          main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as
>     I can.
>        * Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it
>     shorter :(
>
>
>     # On Outreachy
>
>     As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in
>     under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain
>     themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can
>     successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a
>     core focus on *coding*.
>
>     One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many
>     years to
>     achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs
>     successful
>     in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in
>     this!
>     They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully
>     the ASF
>     shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their
>     suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big
>     profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose
>     to them.
>
>     Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean
>     they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We
>     get interviewed, too. :)
>
>
>     # So what project or projects make sense?
>
>     I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in
>     each of
>     the two cohorts.
>
>     We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't
>     started
>     to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these
>     lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial
>     run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate
>     here,
>     and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us
>     sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the
>     Late January 2020 cohort.
>
>     We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at
>     the ASF,
>     and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes
>     PMC's
>     lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or
>     announce@a.o),
>     but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not*
>     our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds,
>     in my
>     opinion.
>
>     We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF
>     contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong
>     value
>     outside the ASF as well would be best.
>
>     Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website
>     redesigns,
>     training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best
>     opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's
>     precisely this
>     "work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented
>     individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a
>     diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the
>     wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked
>     like
>     we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed
>     this, just saying.)
>
>     Things that touch the most people possible, AND have
>     external-to-Apache
>     users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the
>     best central project here. Can anyone think of others?
>
>
>     # On Mentoring
>
>     Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by
>     Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their
>     hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for
>     the huge
>     number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked
>     and underpaid.)
>
>     Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail,
>     let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the
>     expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time
>     and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like
>     Department A paying Department B.
>
>     This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work
>     together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too,
>     would look
>     really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large).
>
>     So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive
>     (even if
>     PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a
>     number you
>     can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we
>     don't
>     have to spend the money if it doesn't work out.
>
>
>     # On the ASF funding question
>
>     No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to
>     contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic
>     means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as
>     "money
>     for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here
>     - even
>     if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad
>     precedent to
>     set, and might even endanger our non-profit status.
>
>     (I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to
>     another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable
>     initiative -
>     anyone know?)
>
>     This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra
>     staff
>     mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I
>     also
>     support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is
>     seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year
>     D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with
>     Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come
>     up with
>     the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage
>     with a
>     sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success.
>
>     One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I
>     could
>     see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the
>     Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and
>     other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen.
>
>
>     -Joan
>
>
>
>     On 2019-06-12 2:16 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote:
>     > I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website
>     states that
>     > the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
>     >
>     > Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format,
>     program etc.
>     >
>     > I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is
>     that they
>     > will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who
>     have done
>     > the program can share more info?
>     >
>     > A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on
>     the budget
>     > request and program.
>     >
>     > [1] Outreachy.org
>     >
>     > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton
>     <niall.pemberton@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz
>     <bdelacretaz@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> Hi,
>     >>>
>     >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas
>     <gris@google.com <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>     >>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project
>     this year
>     >>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>     >>>
>     >>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the
>     $30k budget
>     >>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre
>     Application”
>     >> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a
>     co-ordinator, projects
>     >> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period
>     starts in
>     >> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding
>     for one
>     >> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will
>     be able to
>     >> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the
>     question of
>     >> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t
>     paying for
>     >> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run
>     and just ask
>     >> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the
>     understanding that
>     >> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not
>     be spent if
>     >> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year
>     and if a
>     >> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to
>     Outreachy then
>     >> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
>     >>
>     >> Niall
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>>
>     >>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>     >>>
>     >>> -Bertrand
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >
>

-- 
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171