You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID> on 2019/06/20 16:58:21 UTC
Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was
Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
I was answering a specific question about policy without applying it to any specific situation. Yes, the question was asked in the context of Outreachy, but I believe it was worded in such a way to understand the core principle in order to then think, sensibly, about how it applies to a specific situation - such as Outreachy. We (the ASF broadly) need to spend more time understanding why we have strong opinions on some things before we start saying they don't apply to new situations. Understanding the history helps us design solutions for the new situation that respect the original reason for the position.
For this reason I have changed the subject of this reply. In this reply I am not talking about why the policy exists but rather exploring how we might apply the policy to this new situation.
The goals of Outreachy have no bearing on our policy to not pay for software development. That's not to say we can't seek to support the goals, it's only to say we need to do it in a way that works for the foundation as a whole rather than the goals of a single committee. We should not be using the good work of another org to give permission for us to change a long held policy that is a core part of what makes the ASF successful. We need to find a way to do it such that it is compliant with the policy AND meets the goals of this committee.
FIrst, we need to be clear about what other committees have done in the past. For example, the ASF does not allocate funds for *code development* through TAC, as is claimed below. That was something we very carefully designed when setting up the policies for TAC. For example, we do not require that people write code for ASF projects in order to be eligible, neither do we prioritize one project over another (ASF or otherwise), bor do we require that participants are or become committers or even contributors. What TAC aims to do is bring down some of the barriers to entry to our community for people unable to attend F2F events. The hope is that some of these people will go on to contribute to a project of their choosing - not the ASFs. Some of them do, some of them do not. All benefit from the experience and go on to use their experiences in many ways.
TAC is an example of how we can break down barriers without impacting the policy of not paying for code. This year we figured out how to use the existing TAC process to benefit a specific minority group since we received some directed funding for that group. The fact that we could do that with no change to the selection process means that we got the process mostly right when we set it up all those years ago. That's what we should we should be aiming for here. Some policy that allows us to leverage new opportunities in the future without long and protracted discussion as to the unintended impact of doing so. There is no "slippery slope" if the initial approach covers all perceived risks. The "slippery slope" is not as dangerous if we have very clear guide-rails to hold on to and barriers on the slope itself.
I believe that paying for operational level projects is OK. We do already do that. This is a barrier people are proposing on the slope. I think it is a good one.
An argument has been made that such projects are not representative of a "normal" ASF project. This is true, to an extent. I argue this is irrelevant since they are ASF projects with some of the same people, shared code, contribution guidelines and decision making processes etc. I think they are good introductions to the ASF and can lead to further engagement in other projects. But that isn't really the goal here. The goal is to lower barriers to engagement (as Naomi notes below). It doesn't bother me if none of these people go on to contribute to ASF projects. I see it as part of our educational mission to help educate people who want to learn about how the ASF works. They will take this learning into other parts of their life and we will all have done our jobs. Therefore, I believe this argument is not a blocker.
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:50:56 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 09:42, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> We don't pay for software development in our projects because our
> "software project communities consist of individuals who choose to
> participate in ASF activities." Paying people to produce the software is
> not creating communities of people who choose, but rather (in part)
> people paid by us to be present.
>
I want to point out here that the purpose of Outreachy is to remove the
socio-economic barriers that exist that prevent people from choosing to
contribute to something like an Apache project
this isn't semantic hair-splitting
as it stands, with open source in general, contributing requires that you
have the resources (computer, knowledge/skills, free time) to do so. and
the temperament to do so (i.e., the ability to deal with the
culture/environment that goes along with contributing). which probably
doesn't seem like a big deal to a lot of people here. but that's
survivorship bias for you (i.e., necessarily, we all have those things, so
we're less aware of how much they contribute to our ability to contribute)
these barriers to contribution lock out a substantial number of people. and
I would argue that THIS also makes it difficult to "provide software for
the public good". because we only have a thin sliver of "the public"
represented here
if this was just about paying people salaries to contribute to Apache
projects, yes, I could see the argument that we were choosing which
projects win. I could see that argument that those people were not
"choosing to be here" (in the sense that the choice is being made by the
market--because a lot of people contribute on their employer's dime, as you
point out)
but that's not what Outreachy is doing. Outreachy is about removing
barriers. about enabling people to make that choice in the first place.
something that likely isn't even consciously present for a lot of us
because it's not something that we have to consider
> By putting ourselves in a position of influence we can no longer be
independent of market forces
we already put ourselves in a position of influence when we allocate funds
via TAC, or when allocate funds/resources to projects that request them for
other reasons. and we trust ourselves to do that in a way that is fair and
vendor/market/project-neutral
this is the same rebuttal I have to the "slippery slope" argument. it
presumes that we are unable to exercise good judgment when required to do so
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
TAC chooses the individual. They choose what to do with the opportunity. We don't choose the project.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:48:01 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
I would like to clarify that I was not claiming TAC pays for the
development of code
the way I read Ross’s email is that “don’t pay for code” is actually in
service of a higher-level principal, being: “don’t choose winners”. and I
also understood from his email that we perceive resource allocation to be
the primary way in which we might “choose a winner”
therefore, my argument is this: we already allocate resources in ways that
benefit individual projects. one example is TAC assisting a person who
contributes to Apache Foo
that’s not to say that this is the only way TAC assists people. instead, I
am pointing out that TAC is capable of assisting people in a way that can
be argued benefits specific projects
the same is true for budget/resource requests that PMCs are free to make
which leads me to my overall point: there is clear precedent for us
assisting individual PMCs, and individual people in a way that benefits
individual PMCs. we already trust ourselves to be able to adjudicate such
things fairly and inline with our principals and goals
so my suggestion is this: instead of focusing on “we don’t pay for code”,
how about we focus on what problem that rule was designed to solve and then
consider whether it necessarily applies to the proposal that the ASF is
involved with the funding of an Outreachy internship
for all this talk of principals, it seems to me as if we’re focusing on
what our principals say rather than what we want them to do
On Thu 20. Jun 2019 at 18:58, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> I was answering a specific question about policy without applying it to
> any specific situation. Yes, the question was asked in the context of
> Outreachy, but I believe it was worded in such a way to understand the core
> principle in order to then think, sensibly, about how it applies to a
> specific situation - such as Outreachy. We (the ASF broadly) need to spend
> more time understanding why we have strong opinions on some things before
> we start saying they don't apply to new situations. Understanding the
> history helps us design solutions for the new situation that respect the
> original reason for the position.
>
> For this reason I have changed the subject of this reply. In this reply I
> am not talking about why the policy exists but rather exploring how we
> might apply the policy to this new situation.
>
> The goals of Outreachy have no bearing on our policy to not pay for
> software development. That's not to say we can't seek to support the goals,
> it's only to say we need to do it in a way that works for the foundation as
> a whole rather than the goals of a single committee. We should not be using
> the good work of another org to give permission for us to change a long
> held policy that is a core part of what makes the ASF successful. We need
> to find a way to do it such that it is compliant with the policy AND meets
> the goals of this committee.
>
> FIrst, we need to be clear about what other committees have done in the
> past. For example, the ASF does not allocate funds for *code development*
> through TAC, as is claimed below. That was something we very carefully
> designed when setting up the policies for TAC. For example, we do not
> require that people write code for ASF projects in order to be eligible,
> neither do we prioritize one project over another (ASF or otherwise), bor
> do we require that participants are or become committers or even
> contributors. What TAC aims to do is bring down some of the barriers to
> entry to our community for people unable to attend F2F events. The hope is
> that some of these people will go on to contribute to a project of their
> choosing - not the ASFs. Some of them do, some of them do not. All benefit
> from the experience and go on to use their experiences in many ways.
>
> TAC is an example of how we can break down barriers without impacting the
> policy of not paying for code. This year we figured out how to use the
> existing TAC process to benefit a specific minority group since we received
> some directed funding for that group. The fact that we could do that with
> no change to the selection process means that we got the process mostly
> right when we set it up all those years ago. That's what we should we
> should be aiming for here. Some policy that allows us to leverage new
> opportunities in the future without long and protracted discussion as to
> the unintended impact of doing so. There is no "slippery slope" if the
> initial approach covers all perceived risks. The "slippery slope" is not as
> dangerous if we have very clear guide-rails to hold on to and barriers on
> the slope itself.
>
> I believe that paying for operational level projects is OK. We do already
> do that. This is a barrier people are proposing on the slope. I think it is
> a good one.
>
> An argument has been made that such projects are not representative of a
> "normal" ASF project. This is true, to an extent. I argue this is
> irrelevant since they are ASF projects with some of the same people, shared
> code, contribution guidelines and decision making processes etc. I think
> they are good introductions to the ASF and can lead to further engagement
> in other projects. But that isn't really the goal here. The goal is to
> lower barriers to engagement (as Naomi notes below). It doesn't bother me
> if none of these people go on to contribute to ASF projects. I see it as
> part of our educational mission to help educate people who want to learn
> about how the ASF works. They will take this learning into other parts of
> their life and we will all have done our jobs. Therefore, I believe this
> argument is not a blocker.
>
> Ross
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:50:56 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 09:42, Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > We don't pay for software development in our projects because our
> > "software project communities consist of individuals who choose to
> > participate in ASF activities." Paying people to produce the software is
> > not creating communities of people who choose, but rather (in part)
> > people paid by us to be present.
> >
>
> I want to point out here that the purpose of Outreachy is to remove the
> socio-economic barriers that exist that prevent people from choosing to
> contribute to something like an Apache project
>
> this isn't semantic hair-splitting
>
> as it stands, with open source in general, contributing requires that you
> have the resources (computer, knowledge/skills, free time) to do so. and
> the temperament to do so (i.e., the ability to deal with the
> culture/environment that goes along with contributing). which probably
> doesn't seem like a big deal to a lot of people here. but that's
> survivorship bias for you (i.e., necessarily, we all have those things, so
> we're less aware of how much they contribute to our ability to contribute)
>
> these barriers to contribution lock out a substantial number of people. and
> I would argue that THIS also makes it difficult to "provide software for
> the public good". because we only have a thin sliver of "the public"
> represented here
>
> if this was just about paying people salaries to contribute to Apache
> projects, yes, I could see the argument that we were choosing which
> projects win. I could see that argument that those people were not
> "choosing to be here" (in the sense that the choice is being made by the
> market--because a lot of people contribute on their employer's dime, as you
> point out)
>
> but that's not what Outreachy is doing. Outreachy is about removing
> barriers. about enabling people to make that choice in the first place.
> something that likely isn't even consciously present for a lot of us
> because it's not something that we have to consider
>
> > By putting ourselves in a position of influence we can no longer be
> independent of market forces
>
> we already put ourselves in a position of influence when we allocate funds
> via TAC, or when allocate funds/resources to projects that request them for
> other reasons. and we trust ourselves to do that in a way that is fair and
> vendor/market/project-neutral
>
> this is the same rebuttal I have to the "slippery slope" argument. it
> presumes that we are unable to exercise good judgment when required to do
> so
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
I would like to clarify that I was not claiming TAC pays for the
development of code
the way I read Ross’s email is that “don’t pay for code” is actually in
service of a higher-level principal, being: “don’t choose winners”. and I
also understood from his email that we perceive resource allocation to be
the primary way in which we might “choose a winner”
therefore, my argument is this: we already allocate resources in ways that
benefit individual projects. one example is TAC assisting a person who
contributes to Apache Foo
that’s not to say that this is the only way TAC assists people. instead, I
am pointing out that TAC is capable of assisting people in a way that can
be argued benefits specific projects
the same is true for budget/resource requests that PMCs are free to make
which leads me to my overall point: there is clear precedent for us
assisting individual PMCs, and individual people in a way that benefits
individual PMCs. we already trust ourselves to be able to adjudicate such
things fairly and inline with our principals and goals
so my suggestion is this: instead of focusing on “we don’t pay for code”,
how about we focus on what problem that rule was designed to solve and then
consider whether it necessarily applies to the proposal that the ASF is
involved with the funding of an Outreachy internship
for all this talk of principals, it seems to me as if we’re focusing on
what our principals say rather than what we want them to do
On Thu 20. Jun 2019 at 18:58, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> I was answering a specific question about policy without applying it to
> any specific situation. Yes, the question was asked in the context of
> Outreachy, but I believe it was worded in such a way to understand the core
> principle in order to then think, sensibly, about how it applies to a
> specific situation - such as Outreachy. We (the ASF broadly) need to spend
> more time understanding why we have strong opinions on some things before
> we start saying they don't apply to new situations. Understanding the
> history helps us design solutions for the new situation that respect the
> original reason for the position.
>
> For this reason I have changed the subject of this reply. In this reply I
> am not talking about why the policy exists but rather exploring how we
> might apply the policy to this new situation.
>
> The goals of Outreachy have no bearing on our policy to not pay for
> software development. That's not to say we can't seek to support the goals,
> it's only to say we need to do it in a way that works for the foundation as
> a whole rather than the goals of a single committee. We should not be using
> the good work of another org to give permission for us to change a long
> held policy that is a core part of what makes the ASF successful. We need
> to find a way to do it such that it is compliant with the policy AND meets
> the goals of this committee.
>
> FIrst, we need to be clear about what other committees have done in the
> past. For example, the ASF does not allocate funds for *code development*
> through TAC, as is claimed below. That was something we very carefully
> designed when setting up the policies for TAC. For example, we do not
> require that people write code for ASF projects in order to be eligible,
> neither do we prioritize one project over another (ASF or otherwise), bor
> do we require that participants are or become committers or even
> contributors. What TAC aims to do is bring down some of the barriers to
> entry to our community for people unable to attend F2F events. The hope is
> that some of these people will go on to contribute to a project of their
> choosing - not the ASFs. Some of them do, some of them do not. All benefit
> from the experience and go on to use their experiences in many ways.
>
> TAC is an example of how we can break down barriers without impacting the
> policy of not paying for code. This year we figured out how to use the
> existing TAC process to benefit a specific minority group since we received
> some directed funding for that group. The fact that we could do that with
> no change to the selection process means that we got the process mostly
> right when we set it up all those years ago. That's what we should we
> should be aiming for here. Some policy that allows us to leverage new
> opportunities in the future without long and protracted discussion as to
> the unintended impact of doing so. There is no "slippery slope" if the
> initial approach covers all perceived risks. The "slippery slope" is not as
> dangerous if we have very clear guide-rails to hold on to and barriers on
> the slope itself.
>
> I believe that paying for operational level projects is OK. We do already
> do that. This is a barrier people are proposing on the slope. I think it is
> a good one.
>
> An argument has been made that such projects are not representative of a
> "normal" ASF project. This is true, to an extent. I argue this is
> irrelevant since they are ASF projects with some of the same people, shared
> code, contribution guidelines and decision making processes etc. I think
> they are good introductions to the ASF and can lead to further engagement
> in other projects. But that isn't really the goal here. The goal is to
> lower barriers to engagement (as Naomi notes below). It doesn't bother me
> if none of these people go on to contribute to ASF projects. I see it as
> part of our educational mission to help educate people who want to learn
> about how the ASF works. They will take this learning into other parts of
> their life and we will all have done our jobs. Therefore, I believe this
> argument is not a blocker.
>
> Ross
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:50:56 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 09:42, Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > We don't pay for software development in our projects because our
> > "software project communities consist of individuals who choose to
> > participate in ASF activities." Paying people to produce the software is
> > not creating communities of people who choose, but rather (in part)
> > people paid by us to be present.
> >
>
> I want to point out here that the purpose of Outreachy is to remove the
> socio-economic barriers that exist that prevent people from choosing to
> contribute to something like an Apache project
>
> this isn't semantic hair-splitting
>
> as it stands, with open source in general, contributing requires that you
> have the resources (computer, knowledge/skills, free time) to do so. and
> the temperament to do so (i.e., the ability to deal with the
> culture/environment that goes along with contributing). which probably
> doesn't seem like a big deal to a lot of people here. but that's
> survivorship bias for you (i.e., necessarily, we all have those things, so
> we're less aware of how much they contribute to our ability to contribute)
>
> these barriers to contribution lock out a substantial number of people. and
> I would argue that THIS also makes it difficult to "provide software for
> the public good". because we only have a thin sliver of "the public"
> represented here
>
> if this was just about paying people salaries to contribute to Apache
> projects, yes, I could see the argument that we were choosing which
> projects win. I could see that argument that those people were not
> "choosing to be here" (in the sense that the choice is being made by the
> market--because a lot of people contribute on their employer's dime, as you
> point out)
>
> but that's not what Outreachy is doing. Outreachy is about removing
> barriers. about enabling people to make that choice in the first place.
> something that likely isn't even consciously present for a lot of us
> because it's not something that we have to consider
>
> > By putting ourselves in a position of influence we can no longer be
> independent of market forces
>
> we already put ourselves in a position of influence when we allocate funds
> via TAC, or when allocate funds/resources to projects that request them for
> other reasons. and we trust ourselves to do that in a way that is fair and
> vendor/market/project-neutral
>
> this is the same rebuttal I have to the "slippery slope" argument. it
> presumes that we are unable to exercise good judgment when required to do
> so
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
On Fri 21. Jun 2019 at 18:01, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> 2) the ASF will not select which ASF project gets the Outreachy Intern.
> Instead, the sponsor and/or Outreachy will and all ASF projects are
> encouraged to apply to get an intern.
this is exactly how I see it working. if we figure out a way to accept
targeted donations for “Outreachy”, then I would expect that individual
projects are then responsible for putting themselves forward and requesting
an intern
this will necessarily require the project to produce a mentor. and the
request will need to be approved by the D&I committee
I’m curious. did other people think that the D&I committee would be
selecting projects? and if so, how do you feel about the way I’ve set it
out above? does that alleviate your concerns about “choosing winners”?
(which is, as far as I understand if, the root motivation for “don’t pay
for code”)
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
IMO, this is the classic "multiple kids" problem.
If you have more than one kid, you could pay to send only one kid to a school in a foreign country for a semester. But there is a good chance the other kids will complain of unfair treatment. The one kid that gets to travel will learn the same math/language/whatever they would at home as a byproduct and everyone can gather additional knowledge by observation, but one kid still appeared to get a better deal.
One could argue that exposure to foreign study is so important it is worth the potential problems of unfair treatment as there will be a trickle-down effect where everyone learns, but I don't think that will convince enough people to get approval for funding Outreachy at the ASF.
I am hopeful the proposal proposes a way that shows that either:
1) this is a one-time request due to unfortunate circumstances where it will just be easier/better for the ASF to forward some money to Outreachy on behalf of a sponsor, or,
2) the ASF will not select which ASF project gets the Outreachy Intern. Instead, the sponsor and/or Outreachy will and all ASF projects are encouraged to apply to get an intern.
I suspect there are also other scenarios that can keep the parents (the ASF) from appearing to favor one child over the others.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/21/19, 6:37 AM, "Naomi S" <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
agreed. my proposal (currently being drafted) goes into detail on this
matter. but we don’t want to use Outreachy to inflate our demographics one
internship at a time
we want to gather and synthesize the knowledge we gain through running an
internship program w ppl from under represented groups so that we can
publish recommendations that projects across the foundation can use (with
support from us on duscuss@diversity) to make their projects more welcoming
and safe and inclusive, and ultimately, more attractive to contribute to
On Fri 21. Jun 2019 at 15:21, Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> From the peanut gallery
>
> Le ven. 21 juin 2019 à 03:16, Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> a écrit :
> >
> > No, that argument does not work. If code is produced we are pushing for
> code, it's not a byproduct, it's the output.
>
> I admittedly have strong tendencies towards pedantry, but one
> definition of byproduct is: "an incidental or secondary product made
> in the manufacture or synthesis of something else." Correct me if I'm
> wrong, but the goal D&I is trying to achieve by engaging Outreachy is
> not to produce code, but to provide groups which are currently
> represented an opportunity to engage with the ASF. That is done by
> collaboratively writing code, but writing code is not the primary
> goal.
>
> >
> > Is be very dismayed if we were truly arguing that we can solve the D&I
> problem simply by inflating numbers through paid engagements. That's not
> solving anything, that's hiding it.
>
> I don't interpret anyone's comments so far as suggesting that paid
> engagements will *directly* improve D&I. As Naomi said in another
> thread:
>
> "as it stands, with open source in general, contributing requires that
> you have the resources (computer, knowledge/skills, free time) to do
> so. and the temperament to do so"
>
> I'd be hesitant to call all paid engagements inflating numbers, but
> even if that is the case, these paid engagements open the door for
> future engagement by those who may not have otherwise connected with
> the ASF.
>
>
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fghei36&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf6411c98057c495202a608d6f64d9b8a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636967210524578430&sdata=haJAL6f%2FQpvxe5%2BvVXZiJoiaZQIbVbu4bnc%2BTjGNjk4%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Awasum Yannick <ya...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:36:47 PM
> > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
> acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
> >
> > Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
> > Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
> >
> > The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
> > for? I will say yes.
> >
> > Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 02:33 Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> .invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe
> > > that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my
> point of
> > > view.
> > >
> > > But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-)
> > >
> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fghei36&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf6411c98057c495202a608d6f64d9b8a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636967210524578430&sdata=haJAL6f%2FQpvxe5%2BvVXZiJoiaZQIbVbu4bnc%2BTjGNjk4%3D&reserved=0>
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM
> > > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
> > > acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
> > >
> > > Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
> > > first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
> > > seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
> > > inspirations.
> > >
> > > The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
> > > Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
> > > and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
> > > knowledge. (See
> > >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf6411c98057c495202a608d6f64d9b8a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636967210524578430&sdata=j8blpmDAzNl763VLuvqVPh0hb%2FfvXZ4hCs3r2ufmWMM%3D&reserved=0
> > > )
> > >
> > > The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
> > > Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
> > > artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
> > > achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
> > >
> > > The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
> > > from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
> > > would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
> > > comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
> > > Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
> > > code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
> > > incidental?
> > >
> > > The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
> > > describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
> > > Outreachy.
> > >
> > > - Sam Ruby
> > >
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
agreed. my proposal (currently being drafted) goes into detail on this
matter. but we don’t want to use Outreachy to inflate our demographics one
internship at a time
we want to gather and synthesize the knowledge we gain through running an
internship program w ppl from under represented groups so that we can
publish recommendations that projects across the foundation can use (with
support from us on duscuss@diversity) to make their projects more welcoming
and safe and inclusive, and ultimately, more attractive to contribute to
On Fri 21. Jun 2019 at 15:21, Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> From the peanut gallery
>
> Le ven. 21 juin 2019 à 03:16, Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> a écrit :
> >
> > No, that argument does not work. If code is produced we are pushing for
> code, it's not a byproduct, it's the output.
>
> I admittedly have strong tendencies towards pedantry, but one
> definition of byproduct is: "an incidental or secondary product made
> in the manufacture or synthesis of something else." Correct me if I'm
> wrong, but the goal D&I is trying to achieve by engaging Outreachy is
> not to produce code, but to provide groups which are currently
> represented an opportunity to engage with the ASF. That is done by
> collaboratively writing code, but writing code is not the primary
> goal.
>
> >
> > Is be very dismayed if we were truly arguing that we can solve the D&I
> problem simply by inflating numbers through paid engagements. That's not
> solving anything, that's hiding it.
>
> I don't interpret anyone's comments so far as suggesting that paid
> engagements will *directly* improve D&I. As Naomi said in another
> thread:
>
> "as it stands, with open source in general, contributing requires that
> you have the resources (computer, knowledge/skills, free time) to do
> so. and the temperament to do so"
>
> I'd be hesitant to call all paid engagements inflating numbers, but
> even if that is the case, these paid engagements open the door for
> future engagement by those who may not have otherwise connected with
> the ASF.
>
>
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Awasum Yannick <ya...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:36:47 PM
> > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
> acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
> >
> > Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
> > Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
> >
> > The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
> > for? I will say yes.
> >
> > Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 02:33 Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> .invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe
> > > that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my
> point of
> > > view.
> > >
> > > But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-)
> > >
> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM
> > > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
> > > acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
> > >
> > > Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
> > > first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
> > > seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
> > > inspirations.
> > >
> > > The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
> > > Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
> > > and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
> > > knowledge. (See
> > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C21ba6bf79de84a51d70d08d6f612e805%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636966958400128323&sdata=I3kQHVv1RfyMcQ7dZFxB3t3R7HwKuWI%2Fb5fcNpSk1q0%3D&reserved=0
> > > )
> > >
> > > The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
> > > Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
> > > artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
> > > achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
> > >
> > > The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
> > > from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
> > > would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
> > > comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
> > > Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
> > > code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
> > > incidental?
> > >
> > > The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
> > > describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
> > > Outreachy.
> > >
> > > - Sam Ruby
> > >
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org>.
From the peanut gallery
Le ven. 21 juin 2019 à 03:16, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> a écrit :
>
> No, that argument does not work. If code is produced we are pushing for code, it's not a byproduct, it's the output.
I admittedly have strong tendencies towards pedantry, but one
definition of byproduct is: "an incidental or secondary product made
in the manufacture or synthesis of something else." Correct me if I'm
wrong, but the goal D&I is trying to achieve by engaging Outreachy is
not to produce code, but to provide groups which are currently
represented an opportunity to engage with the ASF. That is done by
collaboratively writing code, but writing code is not the primary
goal.
>
> Is be very dismayed if we were truly arguing that we can solve the D&I problem simply by inflating numbers through paid engagements. That's not solving anything, that's hiding it.
I don't interpret anyone's comments so far as suggesting that paid
engagements will *directly* improve D&I. As Naomi said in another
thread:
"as it stands, with open source in general, contributing requires that
you have the resources (computer, knowledge/skills, free time) to do
so. and the temperament to do so"
I'd be hesitant to call all paid engagements inflating numbers, but
even if that is the case, these paid engagements open the door for
future engagement by those who may not have otherwise connected with
the ASF.
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Awasum Yannick <ya...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:36:47 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
>
> Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
> Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
>
> The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
> for? I will say yes.
>
> Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 02:33 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe
> > that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my point of
> > view.
> >
> > But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-)
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM
> > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
> > acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
> >
> > Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
> > first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
> > seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
> > inspirations.
> >
> > The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
> > Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
> > and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
> > knowledge. (See
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C21ba6bf79de84a51d70d08d6f612e805%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636966958400128323&sdata=I3kQHVv1RfyMcQ7dZFxB3t3R7HwKuWI%2Fb5fcNpSk1q0%3D&reserved=0
> > )
> >
> > The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
> > Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
> > artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
> > achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
> >
> > The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
> > from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
> > would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
> > comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
> > Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
> > code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
> > incidental?
> >
> > The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
> > describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
> > Outreachy.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
Do you think there are any situations in which the main barrier to
someone joining an open source project is a purchasable resource other
than travel to conferences?
On 6/21/2019 12:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> No, that argument does not work. If code is produced we are pushing for code, it's not a byproduct, it's the output.
>
> Is be very dismayed if we were truly arguing that we can solve the D&I problem simply by inflating numbers through paid engagements. That's not solving anything, that's hiding it.
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Awasum Yannick <ya...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:36:47 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
>
> Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
> Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
>
> The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
> for? I will say yes.
>
> Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 02:33 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe
>> that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my point of
>> view.
>>
>> But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-)
>>
>> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM
>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
>> acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
>>
>> Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
>> first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
>> seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
>> inspirations.
>>
>> The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
>> Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
>> and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
>> knowledge. (See
>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C21ba6bf79de84a51d70d08d6f612e805%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636966958400128323&sdata=I3kQHVv1RfyMcQ7dZFxB3t3R7HwKuWI%2Fb5fcNpSk1q0%3D&reserved=0
>> )
>>
>> The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
>> Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
>> artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
>> achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
>>
>> The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
>> from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
>> would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
>> comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
>> Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
>> code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
>> incidental?
>>
>> The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
>> describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
>> Outreachy.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
No, that argument does not work. If code is produced we are pushing for code, it's not a byproduct, it's the output.
Is be very dismayed if we were truly arguing that we can solve the D&I problem simply by inflating numbers through paid engagements. That's not solving anything, that's hiding it.
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Awasum Yannick <ya...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:36:47 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
for? I will say yes.
Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 02:33 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe
> that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my point of
> view.
>
> But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-)
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
> acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
>
> Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
> first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
> seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
> inspirations.
>
> The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
> Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
> and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
> knowledge. (See
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C21ba6bf79de84a51d70d08d6f612e805%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636966958400128323&sdata=I3kQHVv1RfyMcQ7dZFxB3t3R7HwKuWI%2Fb5fcNpSk1q0%3D&reserved=0
> )
>
> The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
> Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
> artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
> achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
>
> The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
> from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
> would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
> comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
> Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
> code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
> incidental?
>
> The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
> describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
> Outreachy.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 6/29/2019 4:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
...
> The experiment may fail. Even if it does, we will have learned
> something. We don't do it again, and next time we try something
> different.
...
Unfair to the interns involved, but the experiment will be most useful
and enlightening if it does fail. We need to know what goes wrong.
My main concern with the Outreachy idea is that the projects will be
self-selected to be unusually favorable to non-traditional contributors
and then pass another level of filtering for commitment to mentoring
etc. It may fail to show problems that would appear if the same intern
had just joined the dev@ list for some project they find interesting.
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> First and foremost, I acknowledge and respect the fact that you are conceding the point that the ASF funding Outreachy directly, or via pass-thru, is, indeed, in "violation" of the tenet that the foundation does not pay for development for our projects. I also understand and appreciate that such concession was not, and is not, easily nor readily come by. And I am pleased but also incredibly respectful that you have admitted as such.
Thanks!
To be clear, I have said that the ASF funding Outreachy directly, or
via pass-thru is effectively paying for code, even if we are not the
ones paying the interns. I have not said that it violated any tenet.
So it may not be as big of a step as you think, but it is a step.
May I ask you if you would be willing to take the following step: can
I get you to agree that asking our Fundraising team to approach
existing and potential sponsors and asking them that instead of
directing funds to us where we could manage them, they should instead
fund Outreachy and to explicitly specify that those funds are to be
use for the development of ASF projects would be effectively us
orchestrating or directing the paying for code, even if those funds
never officially touch our books?
If you join me there, then perhaps we can move beyond trying to make
this appear consistent with our principles, and actually discussing
what needs to be done.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
First and foremost, I acknowledge and respect the fact that you are conceding the point that the ASF funding Outreachy directly, or via pass-thru, is, indeed, in "violation" of the tenet that the foundation does not pay for development for our projects. I also understand and appreciate that such concession was not, and is not, easily nor readily come by. And I am pleased but also incredibly respectful that you have admitted as such.
So the issue in front of this cmmt, and therefore to the board, will be: considering that this engagement does, in fact, 'violate' this tenet, what are the justifications behind it, and what will the ultimate cost be to the foundation and our projects. Yes, of course, increased knowledge and insight into the issues related to D&I will be useful, but that knowledge, and insight, is not bought without cost. We are basically saying that if the "cause" is "worthy" then first principles are negotiable. At which point the floodgates are opened up with various discussions and debates on what is worthy, and what is not. And, IMO, that leads to disaster. First principle are there for reasons. There are there to make it easy to make "hard" decisions.
Again, I agree that the ASF has a diversity pattern which is different from industry norms. I agree that we need to determine why that is. What I do NOT agree with is that this cmmt's 1st action should be in the ASF directly funding (or being a pass-thru) to Outreachy. This is especially true when we are told that we already have a sponsor (or sponsors) willing to fund Outreachy themselves on our behalf; this is especially true when we have not allowed fundraising the ability and authority to seek out sponsors willing to do the same. And finally, especially when THAT method, which totally avoids conflict with this tenet, is being "set aside" for something which creates these issues. Once again, WHY is the former not sufficient? Why is not seeking out sponsors who will fund Outreach directly, on our behalf, ala GSoC, NOT a sufficient and worthwhile endeavor. How, exactly, is the ASF directly sponsoring Outreachy providing "better" knowledge, insight or guidance as compared to the GSoC model.
These are basic, serious questions. Even going by the ideal of small, easily reversible steps (and bypassing a basic tenet is neither of those), the "obvious" 1st step should be that: Have sponsors sponsor Outreachy on our behalf, find out what we can learn, if anything, and see if the engagement meets the desires we hope. I fail to see why that is not the most obvious, least-controversial path. What "extra" insight do we get by funding Outreachy directly that we cannot obtain via a path that would pass the muster of the board and the membership with almost assuredly no pushback at all. Why is that not something that this cmmt finds acceptable? What warrants the time, energy, hostility, anger, damaged relationships, and ill will with this insistence on the ASF funding Outreachy directly?
I already said that if there were those w/i the ASF willing to pony up money and sponsor Outreachy ourselves (outside of the ASF) on the ASF's behalf, I'd commit to at least $1,000 on my end. I will make another commitment. I will also work w/ fundraising to find sponsors willing to sponsor Outreachy ala a GSoC process (non pass-thru). This is how serious I am in doing my part in helping.
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:10 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 2019/06/29 11:50:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:05 AM Dirk-Willem van Gulik
> A handful of interns for a
> > few months as an experiment isn't going to destroy the foundation.
> >
> > The experiment may fail. Even if it does, we will have learned
> > something. We don't do it again, and next time we try something
> > different.
>
> Simply classifying something as a test, or experiment, and then saying that it isn’t going to destroy the foundation somehow needs to be justified.
We have a diversity problem. The committee has recommended this as a
next step towards addressing that problem.
> Here is an example: one core principle I have with my wife Eileen is that I will be faithful. If I then say that I want to have a little fling with someone, just a little one night stand, as an experiment, and c’mon it’s not going to destroy our marriage, do you think I’d have a shot??
Probably not.
> Apples and oranges? Maybe. But tell me, what are guiding principles, what are core tenets, for anyway? Did we allow Sun to get away with a little experiment where FOU restrictions were allowed? No. We held to our guns. Some may see that as stifling. I see it as earning and warranting respect. The ASF stands for something. Personally, I think that is a virtuous thing that should be protected.
Each of those cases are different. We also had lengthy and at times
heated discussions about hiring staff, whether or not we should accept
targeted donations or allow git as a version control system. And in
many cases we made difficult decisions in the face of people shouting
FIRST PRINCIPLES.
I ask that you give this committee a chance to develop and present its
recommendation to the board, and give the board a chance to evaluate
that recommendation.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On 2019/06/29 11:50:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:05 AM Dirk-Willem van Gulik
A handful of interns for a
> few months as an experiment isn't going to destroy the foundation.
>
> The experiment may fail. Even if it does, we will have learned
> something. We don't do it again, and next time we try something
> different.
>
Simply classifying something as a test, or experiment, and then saying that it isn’t going to destroy the foundation somehow needs to be justified.
Here is an example: one core principle I have with my wife Eileen is that I will be faithful. If I then say that I want to have a little fling with someone, just a little one night stand, as an experiment, and c’mon it’s not going to destroy our marriage, do you think I’d have a shot??
Apples and oranges? Maybe. But tell me, what are guiding principles, what are core tenets, for anyway? Did we allow Sun to get away with a little experiment where FOU restrictions were allowed? No. We held to our guns. Some may see that as stifling. I see it as earning and warranting respect. The ASF stands for something. Personally, I think that is a virtuous thing that should be protected.
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:05 AM Dirk-Willem van Gulik
<di...@webweaving.org> wrote:
>
> On 29 Jun 2019, at 06:48, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ snip useful summary ]
>
> > Given the D&I objectives for this program, I'd say that code is a byproduct and not the deliverable.
>
> While that is true (re-defining `code’ here as anything/work that is part of that what the communities are about - be it it code, scripts, build improvements, sites, beter CVE finding, bug-triage, doc-templates, dependency simplification) — I’d love to somehow keep `code’ in the primary path of what is on offer.
>
> As it is (pride in) that which, in my opinion, drives the feedbackloop that improves and keeps our communities long term stable.
>
> The mere hint of introducing a class of `byproduct code’ may lessen the K in that feedback loop below 1. And keep the `byproduct’ your aforementioned:
I agree. Money will be spent. Code will be produced. The people we
want to attract shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of producing code.
And as Dirk points out, we will learn less about what the problem we
have here is by structuring it that way.
We spend money for Marketing and Publicity, Infra, Conferences, and
many other things. And some of that money goes for the production of
code. But that's different. Yes it is. The question we should be
facing rather than avoiding is: should this be different too? The
answer may be no, but that's the question that should be asked.
Our fundraising team could convince one or more sponsors to send *all*
of it's sponsorship money intended for the ASF to Outreachy, with the
explicit targeting of those funds to benefit projects at the ASF. The
source of the funds will be the same, the results will be the same.
Our involvement will be the same. We directed those funds from the
beginning to the end.
In each case, people will draw the connection that money will be spent
and code will be produced. Accounting tricks and word games won't
make them feel otherwise. They will be right.
We have a significant diversity problem. What is being proposed is
expressly time limited and therefore inherently reversible step - we
simply don't renew. Our foundation has a 20 year history, has 350+
projects, and 200 million lines of code. A handful of interns for a
few months as an experiment isn't going to destroy the foundation.
The experiment may fail. Even if it does, we will have learned
something. We don't do it again, and next time we try something
different.
> Dw.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On 29 Jun 2019, at 06:48, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ snip useful summary ]
> Given the D&I objectives for this program, I'd say that code is a byproduct and not the deliverable.
While that is true (re-defining `code’ here as anything/work that is part of that what the communities are about - be it it code, scripts, build improvements, sites, beter CVE finding, bug-triage, doc-templates, dependency simplification) — I’d love to somehow keep `code’ in the primary path of what is on offer.
As it is (pride in) that which, in my opinion, drives the feedbackloop that improves and keeps our communities long term stable.
The mere hint of introducing a class of `byproduct code’ may lessen the K in that feedback loop below 1. And keep the `byproduct’ your aforementioned:
> During program reviews, communities get feedback on how to reduce barriers to entry and how to increase/encourage participation.
Dw.
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Here are some additional thoughts on where we go from here.
The Outreachy program is one of three initiatives that the D&I committee originally asked the board to fund for this year. The other two are proceeding apace.
The Outreachy program is an experiment, and we do not know nor can we know up front what the results will be.
We might find significant barriers to entry to contributing to Apache communities that are faced by under-represented people. We will then need to decide how or if or how quickly to lower these barriers.
We might find that Outreachy graduates continue to contribute to Apache projects.
We might find that Outreachy graduates recruit other people to apply to Outreachy for mentorships.
We might decide that funding Outreachy on a continuing basis is in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose.
We might find that Outreachy gives us no information that we didn't know already.
We might find it difficult or impossible to find Apache communities who are willing and able to provide mentors for Outreachy applicants.
Craig
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 9:48 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've spent a bit of time looking into the Outreachy process and I'd like to summarize my understanding:
>
> 1. Pre-application: Communities choose prospective mentors to work with prospective interns. Apache communities who wish to participate must provide suitable mentors.
>
> 2. Application: Prospective interns select projects and work with mentors to make contributions to projects.
>
> 3. Selection: Communities review applicants and choose those whose contributions indicate they will make good interns.
>
> 4. Internship period: Interns work full time for three months with the mutually-selected communities.
>
> 5. Program reviews: Interns evaluate mentors and communities; mentors and communities evaluate interns.
>
> What does Apache get from this?
>
> During pre-application, identifying suitable mentors may help communities understand themselves better.
>
> During application, communities may get feedback on barriers to entry that under-represented people face.
>
> All of this is without $payment to/from Apache/Outreachy.
>
> During internship, projects get more detail on how the community enables contributions from under-represented people, and get some code (programming/doc/ux/build/release) contributions.
>
> During program reviews, communities get feedback on how to reduce barriers to entry and how to increase/encourage participation.
>
> Given the D&I objectives for this program, I'd say that code is a byproduct and not the deliverable.
>
> If the objective of the program were code deliverables, this process would be completely different. And we would certainly pay folks more than $10/hour for their contributions.
>
> Craig
>
>> On Jun 20, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Awasum Yannick <yannickawasum@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
>> Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
>>
>> The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
>> for? I will say yes.
>>
>> Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
>>
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:20 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/06/29 04:48:56, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Given the D&I objectives for this program, I'd say that code is a
> byproduct and not the deliverable.
> >
> > If the objective of the program were code deliverables, this process
> would be completely different. And we would certainly pay folks more than
> $10/hour for their contributions.
> >
> > Craig
> >
>
> Craig, I appreciate the thought that went into this, but I also feel that
> the thought process is flawed. It appears that the goal was to figure out
> some way to justify funding outreach, and trying to find some way to
> justify doing so. Instead, as a member of the board, as well as the ASF, it
> should have started with the mindset that we have a policy, and does using
> Outreachy via a pass-thru violate the letter and the spirit of that policy.
>
> Somehow defining code as a “side product” is a mistake, I think. It is
> like saying that code is a byproduct of the ASF and so really, when you get
> down to it, anything and everything is ok. It is simple verbal “games”
> meant to obfuscate.
>
Community Over Code may imply Code is secondary or byproduct of a software
project at Apache. In reality, code and community are of equal importance.
> Basically, the standpoint is “funding outreach via a pass-thru is
> important and therefore we need to figure out some way to avoid or justify
> getting around a 20+ year policy”. I think that places the wants of D&I
> above the needs of the ASF.
>
> Again, I need to stress, I have failed to see any valid reason why the ASF
> MUST pass-thru or even fund Outreachy directly when we have sponsors
> willing to fund Outreachy themselves and we operate under a GSoC type
> model. The only reasons I can see which have been proposed “it make it
> sucky for the sponsor (with no supporting data to back up that statement)”
> or “its only 0.x% of our budget and we should do it (the assumption being
> that we should be able to ignore basic tenets of the ASF as long as it
> doesn’t cost too much).
>
> Make no mistake, this is a violation of ASF policy. It directly impacts
> our projects, by having a commt intrude on their development and should the
> board approve, it is tacitly allowing a “president’s cmmt” to do something
> that is expressly forbidden in the bylaws.
>
> Finally, I find it sad that this cmmt finds it within its pursue to work
> out ways around ASF policy when there is so much more it can, and should be
> doing. That the 1st major effort of this cmmt is something controversial,
> something directly attacking ASF policy, instead of all the things the
> board, and the membership were told they were *going to do* is
> disheartening. This is not how you handle D&I, this is not how you change
> hearts and minds, and the fact that, IMO, that the cmmt is blinded by
> funding Outreachy, no matter what the costs, have staked their reputation
> and the reputation of the ASF on a hill for no viable nor rational reason.
> All most assuredly IMO.
>
> I sincerely ask this cmmt to respect those numerous people, who have been
> around for decades, who not only “drafted” the Apache Way but also
> protected it (it being one of the main reasons for our success for 20+
> years), who clearly but unabashedly state that funding Outreachy directly,
> or as a pass-thru, does, indeed, in their opinion, violate this tenet. Even
> mathematically, the vast number of years of experience, as members,
> directors and officers, of those saying “no”, far, far, far outweighs that
> of those saying “yes”. That should be telling and, I hope, the cmmt members
> take that in mind.
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On 2019/06/29 04:48:56, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the D&I objectives for this program, I'd say that code is a byproduct and not the deliverable.
>
> If the objective of the program were code deliverables, this process would be completely different. And we would certainly pay folks more than $10/hour for their contributions.
>
> Craig
>
Craig, I appreciate the thought that went into this, but I also feel that the thought process is flawed. It appears that the goal was to figure out some way to justify funding outreach, and trying to find some way to justify doing so. Instead, as a member of the board, as well as the ASF, it should have started with the mindset that we have a policy, and does using Outreachy via a pass-thru violate the letter and the spirit of that policy.
Somehow defining code as a “side product” is a mistake, I think. It is like saying that code is a byproduct of the ASF and so really, when you get down to it, anything and everything is ok. It is simple verbal “games” meant to obfuscate.
Basically, the standpoint is “funding outreach via a pass-thru is important and therefore we need to figure out some way to avoid or justify getting around a 20+ year policy”. I think that places the wants of D&I above the needs of the ASF.
Again, I need to stress, I have failed to see any valid reason why the ASF MUST pass-thru or even fund Outreachy directly when we have sponsors willing to fund Outreachy themselves and we operate under a GSoC type model. The only reasons I can see which have been proposed “it make it sucky for the sponsor (with no supporting data to back up that statement)” or “its only 0.x% of our budget and we should do it (the assumption being that we should be able to ignore basic tenets of the ASF as long as it doesn’t cost too much).
Make no mistake, this is a violation of ASF policy. It directly impacts our projects, by having a commt intrude on their development and should the board approve, it is tacitly allowing a “president’s cmmt” to do something that is expressly forbidden in the bylaws.
Finally, I find it sad that this cmmt finds it within its pursue to work out ways around ASF policy when there is so much more it can, and should be doing. That the 1st major effort of this cmmt is something controversial, something directly attacking ASF policy, instead of all the things the board, and the membership were told they were *going to do* is disheartening. This is not how you handle D&I, this is not how you change hearts and minds, and the fact that, IMO, that the cmmt is blinded by funding Outreachy, no matter what the costs, have staked their reputation and the reputation of the ASF on a hill for no viable nor rational reason. All most assuredly IMO.
I sincerely ask this cmmt to respect those numerous people, who have been around for decades, who not only “drafted” the Apache Way but also protected it (it being one of the main reasons for our success for 20+ years), who clearly but unabashedly state that funding Outreachy directly, or as a pass-thru, does, indeed, in their opinion, violate this tenet. Even mathematically, the vast number of years of experience, as members, directors and officers, of those saying “no”, far, far, far outweighs that of those saying “yes”. That should be telling and, I hope, the cmmt members take that in mind.
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
I've spent a bit of time looking into the Outreachy process and I'd like to summarize my understanding:
1. Pre-application: Communities choose prospective mentors to work with prospective interns. Apache communities who wish to participate must provide suitable mentors.
2. Application: Prospective interns select projects and work with mentors to make contributions to projects.
3. Selection: Communities review applicants and choose those whose contributions indicate they will make good interns.
4. Internship period: Interns work full time for three months with the mutually-selected communities.
5. Program reviews: Interns evaluate mentors and communities; mentors and communities evaluate interns.
What does Apache get from this?
During pre-application, identifying suitable mentors may help communities understand themselves better.
During application, communities may get feedback on barriers to entry that under-represented people face.
All of this is without $payment to/from Apache/Outreachy.
During internship, projects get more detail on how the community enables contributions from under-represented people, and get some code (programming/doc/ux/build/release) contributions.
During program reviews, communities get feedback on how to reduce barriers to entry and how to increase/encourage participation.
Given the D&I objectives for this program, I'd say that code is a byproduct and not the deliverable.
If the objective of the program were code deliverables, this process would be completely different. And we would certainly pay folks more than $10/hour for their contributions.
Craig
> On Jun 20, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Awasum Yannick <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
> Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
>
> The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
> for? I will say yes.
>
> Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
>
>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Awasum Yannick <ya...@gmail.com>.
Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct.
Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low.
The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay
for? I will say yes.
Is paying for D&I a bad thing?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 02:33 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe
> that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my point of
> view.
>
> But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-)
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that
> acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
>
> Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
> first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
> seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
> inspirations.
>
> The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
> Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
> and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
> knowledge. (See
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7Cdfabab88f2f14c5a235c08d6f5e7ce38%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636966773278239598&sdata=4iuQSkDyDPn3Trrq8BFASeRVYF2cf9S75dVGPSzvyPs%3D&reserved=0
> )
>
> The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
> Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
> artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
> achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
>
> The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
> from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
> would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
> comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
> Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
> code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
> incidental?
>
> The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
> describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
> Outreachy.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my point of view.
But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-)
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
inspirations.
The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
knowledge. (See https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7Cdfabab88f2f14c5a235c08d6f5e7ce38%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636966773278239598&sdata=4iuQSkDyDPn3Trrq8BFASeRVYF2cf9S75dVGPSzvyPs%3D&reserved=0)
The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
incidental?
The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
Outreachy.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?
(was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But
first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and
seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as
inspirations.
The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey
Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit,
and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is
knowledge. (See https://s.apache.org/giFi)
The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on
Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and
artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither
achieved consensus, so let's ignore both.
The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive
from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case,
would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels
comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and
Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any
code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is
incidental?
The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days
describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with
Outreachy.
- Sam Ruby