You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2019/06/19 13:24:55 UTC
Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a foundational question: Why Outreachy.
All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we expect to get out of it.
I think it's a valid question to ask since it has the potential to change and alter a lot of things. As such, I'm adding dev@diversity to this thread in hopes that people respond.
Cheers.
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and crucial to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this perceived need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to sponsor/support Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of energy seems to be going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value to the ASF and our projects being worth it.
>
> Perhaps that should be discussed on dev@diversity?
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
>
> - Sam Ruby
Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
+1 to everything Ross said
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 16:20, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> Doing something with outreachy has a direct impact on being minority
> people, safely, into the ASF ecosystem.
>
> Not doing it does not do so.
>
> Doing something with outreachy means those of us watching and learning can
> watch and learn.
>
> Not doing it does not offer this opportunity.
>
> Doing something with outreachy means we can help some otherwise
> inaccessible people learn about the ASF and our mission.
>
> Not doing it does not offer this opportunity.
>
> Personally I think this educational value is obvious stuff and it's part
> of our mission. I'm guessing the lack of argument about whether it's a good
> idea or not is because others believe it's a good idea too.
>
> What is not obvious is why we wouldn't do it. Perhaps I am missing
> something that others can see. As is the Apache Way the onus is on those
> who see issues to raise them so they may be addressed.
>
> So what concerns must the committee address that are not already being
> addressed in the developing proposal?
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:48:28 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of
> it
>
> Thx. Forgot to do that.
>
> > On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > Moving board to bcc. Don't mix public and private lists[1].
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > [1]
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fincubator.apache.org%2Fguides%2Fcommitter.html&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C857de30b6c69447c90ee08d6f4bcdb22%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636965489302072443&sdata=9M3iYtPOuBvMj89ZJXbgZHVjExP8%2F2GMWwdNiSvwmWs%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:25 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a
> foundational question: Why Outreachy.
> >>
> >> All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was
> important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just
> thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at
> least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we
> expect to get out of it.
> >>
> >> I think it's a valid question to ask since it has the potential to
> change and alter a lot of things. As such, I'm adding dev@diversity to
> this thread in hopes that people respond.
> >>
> >> Cheers.
> >>
> >>> On Jun 19, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and
> crucial to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this
> perceived need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to
> sponsor/support Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of
> energy seems to be going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value
> to the ASF and our projects being worth it.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps that should be discussed on dev@diversity?
> >>>
> >>>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fa02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c%40%253Cdev.diversity.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C857de30b6c69447c90ee08d6f4bcdb22%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636965489302072443&sdata=mPqx7LE%2FktJrRMkXARLiY%2FE89xMxKTBrt%2BPR6lQocMM%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> - Sam Ruby
> >>
>
>
Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
Doing something with outreachy has a direct impact on being minority people, safely, into the ASF ecosystem.
Not doing it does not do so.
Doing something with outreachy means those of us watching and learning can watch and learn.
Not doing it does not offer this opportunity.
Doing something with outreachy means we can help some otherwise inaccessible people learn about the ASF and our mission.
Not doing it does not offer this opportunity.
Personally I think this educational value is obvious stuff and it's part of our mission. I'm guessing the lack of argument about whether it's a good idea or not is because others believe it's a good idea too.
What is not obvious is why we wouldn't do it. Perhaps I am missing something that others can see. As is the Apache Way the onus is on those who see issues to raise them so they may be addressed.
So what concerns must the committee address that are not already being addressed in the developing proposal?
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:48:28 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Thx. Forgot to do that.
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> Moving board to bcc. Don't mix public and private lists[1].
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fincubator.apache.org%2Fguides%2Fcommitter.html&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C857de30b6c69447c90ee08d6f4bcdb22%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636965489302072443&sdata=9M3iYtPOuBvMj89ZJXbgZHVjExP8%2F2GMWwdNiSvwmWs%3D&reserved=0
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:25 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a foundational question: Why Outreachy.
>>
>> All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we expect to get out of it.
>>
>> I think it's a valid question to ask since it has the potential to change and alter a lot of things. As such, I'm adding dev@diversity to this thread in hopes that people respond.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and crucial to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this perceived need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to sponsor/support Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of energy seems to be going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value to the ASF and our projects being worth it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that should be discussed on dev@diversity?
>>>
>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fa02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c%40%253Cdev.diversity.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C857de30b6c69447c90ee08d6f4bcdb22%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636965489302072443&sdata=mPqx7LE%2FktJrRMkXARLiY%2FE89xMxKTBrt%2BPR6lQocMM%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>
Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Thx. Forgot to do that.
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> Moving board to bcc. Don't mix public and private lists[1].
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] https://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:25 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a foundational question: Why Outreachy.
>>
>> All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we expect to get out of it.
>>
>> I think it's a valid question to ask since it has the potential to change and alter a lot of things. As such, I'm adding dev@diversity to this thread in hopes that people respond.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and crucial to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this perceived need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to sponsor/support Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of energy seems to be going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value to the ASF and our projects being worth it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that should be discussed on dev@diversity?
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>
Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Moving board to bcc. Don't mix public and private lists[1].
- Sam Ruby
[1] https://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:25 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a foundational question: Why Outreachy.
>
> All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we expect to get out of it.
>
> I think it's a valid question to ask since it has the potential to change and alter a lot of things. As such, I'm adding dev@diversity to this thread in hopes that people respond.
>
> Cheers.
>
> > On Jun 19, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and crucial to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this perceived need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to sponsor/support Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of energy seems to be going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value to the ASF and our projects being worth it.
> >
> > Perhaps that should be discussed on dev@diversity?
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>
Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
This thread really just should be on dev@diversity
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:25 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a
> foundational question: Why Outreachy.
>
> All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was
> important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just
> thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at
> least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we
> expect to get out of it.
>
> I think it's a valid question to ask since it has the potential to change
> and alter a lot of things. As such, I'm adding dev@diversity to this
> thread in hopes that people respond.
>
> Cheers.
>
> > On Jun 19, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and
> crucial to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this
> perceived need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to
> sponsor/support Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of
> energy seems to be going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value
> to the ASF and our projects being worth it.
> >
> > Perhaps that should be discussed on dev@diversity?
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>
>
Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a
> foundational question: Why Outreachy.
>
> All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was
> important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just
> thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at
> least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we
> expect to get out of it.
>
Outreachy is a natural outgrowth of GSoC itself, the Gnome project's own
initiative with over a decade, and ultimately passing the organizational
torch off to the SFC. This article gives lots of insight.
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/GNOME-Women-in-Open-Source-Project
Others will reinforce what Outreachy has and can continue to accomplish.
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and
> crucial to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this
> perceived need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to
> sponsor/support Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of
> energy seems to be going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value
> to the ASF and our projects being worth it.
>
I am not understanding how other members investing their individual energy
into a new initiative translates into your valuation or scorn? I did
understand that the ASF strongly values the ideal that individual
contributors scratch their own itch. Isn't that a founding/core principal?
Doesn't that equally apply to the members, officers and directors of this
organization? What do your itches have to do with theirs?
My perspective is that leveraging a successful existing program leaves the
officers and board members who wish to provide actual mentorship and
supervision of internships the cycles to do so, by avoiding the many
management and finance burdens of administering such a program. The
Software Freedom Conservancy provides the program an organizational
framework, leaving projects across the OSS spectrum to benefit from the
program without being overburdened by it (much like Google provides through
GSoC.)
Many contributors are paid by their employers to participate at the
ASF, or run businesses or consultancies financially benefiting from ASF
involvement themselves. This isn't unusual or undesirable.
Many contributors participate for other extrinsic or intrinsic motivations
(such as reputation, career or social networking, educating themselves,
solving issues for not-for-profit causes, etc etc etc.)
The first case, we can hope the software industry continues to make inroads
in D&I - the direct impact should be more representative participation,
increasing the number of ASF contributors as a whole. And the industry's
pipeline of qualified candidates involves not only presenting an attractive
opportunity, but for the education pipeline to succeed at their own D&I
initiatives in attracting a diverse and capable student body.
The second case I suspect is the key goal of dev@diversity.a.o - to look at
these other motivations and create a more welcoming environment.
Facilitating the chance for any interested project/individual mentor to
work in the Outreachy model just as the ASF does with GSoC, finding
external funding to subsidize both models (GSoC subsidized by Google, of
course), does not break with the tradition of the ASF not directly funding
software development. Of course, the ASF could and should be the direct
sponsor of any internship for work on the Foundation's own core
infrastructure and administration needs, just as others contractors have
been paid in the past.
Of course you are free to find the entire idea of GSoC or Outreachy
participation without value, or merit, and therefore spend none of your own
energies scratching such an itch. So long as others do want to invest their
energy and scratch their itches, and the board chooses to engage with
Outreachy as it has with GSoC, investing great amounts of energy attacking
such efforts for your perception of a lack of value suggests an itch which
is misguided at best, overreaching and patriarchal at worst.