You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com.INVALID> on 2019/06/12 09:20:59 UTC
(Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Hi folks - I need to finalize the budget request to the board, and I want
to discuss wether we request money for Outreachy. Let's treat this with
urgency and try to get everyone's vote/input in the next 48h.
I am convinced that we need a formal program that helps us engage under
represented groups and Outreachy has the endorsement of a few folks in the
committee so I want to try it. We have 2 options:
For option 1
I am supportive of including this line item in the budget with the
following considerations:
1) I need a project owner, someone who will ensure we use the budget and
help us navigate the best way to implement a sustainable program at the
ASF. I will work closely with this person
2) I need input on a reasonable amount to request. I read that each intern
is paid around $6k. For me $30k to cover 5 internships is a good start.
For option 2
There is also the option of not requesting budget but instead work on the
implementation plan and once we are ready we pursue sponsorships from a few
folks to launch the pilot.
Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year and what
option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request.
Additionally if you are interested in being the champion say it here so we
consider candidates.
Also let's keep the full budget discussion in a separate thread.
Thanks
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
What are the interns being asked to do? What is the product/deliverable we
hope to get from them?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 05:51 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com> wrote:
> > ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>
> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
>
> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
H,
Great proposal Joan, just one comment.
> * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I propose
> PonyMail.
Activity on the project is light, I’m not sure anyone there (outside of infra on the PPMC) would have time for mentoring, they sometimes don’t have time to submit board reports. (They have been better more recently). There’s probably other projects that would be better suited.
Thanks,
Justin
P.S. Also what going on with the CCs here, there no need to CC sometime to private if it’s on dev.
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
thank you Gris!!
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 14:07, Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Everyone - It seems we have consensus to ask for budget we can dedicate
> to Outreachy interns regardless of the specifics on the execution. I'll go
> ahead and leave the item in the budget request for $30k.
>
>
> I'm going to focus now on sending the budget request, after that I'd like
> to come back to find a champion (or champions) and hone a plan to achieve
> this.
>
>
> Thank you all.
>
> G
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 10:49, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until Monday, but
>> wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today.
>>
>> (FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer
>> than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to
>> dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible in
>> public.)
>>
>> CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions.
>>
>>
>> # Summary
>>
>> * I support the initiative overall.
>> * I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but
>> * I think external funding for interns should be the goal (Option 2).
>> * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I propose
>> PonyMail.
>> * This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra
>> staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate 5h/week)
>> because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load we'd be
>> asking of them.
>> * My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be Outreachy's
>> main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as I can.
>> * Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it shorter
>> :(
>>
>>
>> # On Outreachy
>>
>> As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in
>> under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain
>> themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can
>> successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a
>> core focus on *coding*.
>>
>> One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many years to
>> achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs successful
>> in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in this!
>> They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully the ASF
>> shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their
>> suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big
>> profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose to them.
>>
>> Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean
>> they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We
>> get interviewed, too. :)
>>
>>
>> # So what project or projects make sense?
>>
>> I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in each of
>> the two cohorts.
>>
>> We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't started
>> to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these
>> lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial
>> run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate here,
>> and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us
>> sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the
>> Late January 2020 cohort.
>>
>> We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at the ASF,
>> and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes PMC's
>> lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or announce@a.o),
>> but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not*
>> our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds, in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF
>> contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong value
>> outside the ASF as well would be best.
>>
>> Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website redesigns,
>> training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best
>> opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's precisely this
>> "work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented
>> individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a
>> diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the
>> wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked like
>> we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed
>> this, just saying.)
>>
>> Things that touch the most people possible, AND have external-to-Apache
>> users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the
>> best central project here. Can anyone think of others?
>>
>>
>> # On Mentoring
>>
>> Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by
>> Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their
>> hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for the huge
>> number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked
>> and underpaid.)
>>
>> Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail,
>> let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the
>> expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time
>> and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like
>> Department A paying Department B.
>>
>> This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work
>> together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too, would look
>> really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large).
>>
>> So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive (even if
>> PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a number you
>> can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we don't
>> have to spend the money if it doesn't work out.
>>
>>
>> # On the ASF funding question
>>
>> No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to
>> contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic
>> means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as "money
>> for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here - even
>> if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad precedent to
>> set, and might even endanger our non-profit status.
>>
>> (I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to
>> another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable initiative -
>> anyone know?)
>>
>> This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra staff
>> mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I also
>> support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is
>> seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year
>> D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with
>> Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come up with
>> the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage with a
>> sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success.
>>
>> One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I could
>> see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the
>> Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and
>> other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen.
>>
>>
>> -Joan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2019-06-12 2:16 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote:
>> > I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states
>> that
>> > the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
>> >
>> > Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program
>> etc.
>> >
>> > I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they
>> > will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have
>> done
>> > the program can share more info?
>> >
>> > A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the
>> budget
>> > request and program.
>> >
>> > [1] Outreachy.org
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <
>> niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
>> >>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>> >>>
>> >>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
>> >>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre
>> Application”
>> >> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator,
>> projects
>> >> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts
>> in
>> >> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
>> >> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able
>> to
>> >> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question
>> of
>> >> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying
>> for
>> >> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and
>> just ask
>> >> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding
>> that
>> >> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be
>> spent if
>> >> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
>> >> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
>> >> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
>> >>
>> >> Niall
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Bertrand
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
re: voting / polling was Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on
budget request for an Outreachy pilot
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
+ Daniel for his $0.02 on this.
So this process documented below worked pretty well at Fundraising where
if there is something major, we try and open open discussion on the item
with a preface such as "We have a deadline of X so I'd like to have
discussion for X days, then I will start a vote for X days and make my
decision based on your input."
But the votes are more like "polling" advisers than voting because the
buck stops with Gris as the VP since we aren't a PMC.
When Daniel and I were co-VPs in Fundraising but he was volunteer and I
was paid, we used this framework with pretty good success. Since we
aren't a PMC setting expectations that Gris has to drive the boat but
try and navigate the PMC-like structure, I thought it would help to
paste this information
*
*
Discuss Voting:
o
Daniel brings up a concern with voting which I thought might be
good to bang out something to get discussion started.
o
Right now Daniel and I are equals and technically the only two
binding votes. The rest of the committee is technically
non-binding votes similar to the Incubator PMC. The non-binding
votes are typically not ignored.
o
For me, as a paid position, it's clearly Apache Way for me to
defer on administrative matters to Daniel's vote hence Daniel
can effectively veto everyone.
o
I thought it would be good to mention this in writing. I know I
brought it up yesterday and I think I mentioned it in the action
items.
o
In general, think of our votes as information for Daniel to then
be the final decision maker. This is especially important in
times like our monthly meetings if Daniel can't be present.
AI: Synopsis re Voting: Voting is just polling. Make sure to record the
Motion for what is polled more clearly in the future.
*
Regards,
KAM
On 6/14/2019 8:06 AM, Griselda Cuevas wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone - It seems we have consensus to ask for budget we can
> dedicate to Outreachy interns regardless of the specifics on the
> execution. I'll go ahead and leave the item in the budget request for
> $30k.
>
>
> I'm going to focus now on sending the budget request, after that I'd
> like to come back to find a champion (or champions) and hone a plan to
> achieve this.
>
>
> Thank you all.
>
> G
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 10:49, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until
> Monday, but
> wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today.
>
> (FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer
> than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to
> dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible
> in public.)
>
> CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions.
>
>
> # Summary
>
> * I support the initiative overall.
> * I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but
> * I think external funding for interns should be the goal
> (Option 2).
> * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I
> propose
> PonyMail.
> * This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra
> staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate
> 5h/week)
> because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load
> we'd be
> asking of them.
> * My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be
> Outreachy's
> main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as
> I can.
> * Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it
> shorter :(
>
>
> # On Outreachy
>
> As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in
> under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain
> themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can
> successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a
> core focus on *coding*.
>
> One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many
> years to
> achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs
> successful
> in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in
> this!
> They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully
> the ASF
> shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their
> suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big
> profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose
> to them.
>
> Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean
> they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We
> get interviewed, too. :)
>
>
> # So what project or projects make sense?
>
> I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in
> each of
> the two cohorts.
>
> We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't
> started
> to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these
> lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial
> run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate
> here,
> and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us
> sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the
> Late January 2020 cohort.
>
> We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at
> the ASF,
> and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes
> PMC's
> lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or
> announce@a.o),
> but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not*
> our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds,
> in my
> opinion.
>
> We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF
> contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong
> value
> outside the ASF as well would be best.
>
> Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website
> redesigns,
> training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best
> opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's
> precisely this
> "work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented
> individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a
> diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the
> wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked
> like
> we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed
> this, just saying.)
>
> Things that touch the most people possible, AND have
> external-to-Apache
> users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the
> best central project here. Can anyone think of others?
>
>
> # On Mentoring
>
> Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by
> Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their
> hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for
> the huge
> number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked
> and underpaid.)
>
> Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail,
> let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the
> expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time
> and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like
> Department A paying Department B.
>
> This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work
> together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too,
> would look
> really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large).
>
> So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive
> (even if
> PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a
> number you
> can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we
> don't
> have to spend the money if it doesn't work out.
>
>
> # On the ASF funding question
>
> No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to
> contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic
> means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as
> "money
> for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here
> - even
> if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad
> precedent to
> set, and might even endanger our non-profit status.
>
> (I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to
> another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable
> initiative -
> anyone know?)
>
> This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra
> staff
> mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I
> also
> support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is
> seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year
> D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with
> Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come
> up with
> the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage
> with a
> sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success.
>
> One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I
> could
> see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the
> Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and
> other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen.
>
>
> -Joan
>
>
>
> On 2019-06-12 2:16 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> > I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website
> states that
> > the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
> >
> > Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format,
> program etc.
> >
> > I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is
> that they
> > will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who
> have done
> > the program can share more info?
> >
> > A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on
> the budget
> > request and program.
> >
> > [1] Outreachy.org
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton
> <niall.pemberton@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas
> <gris@google.com <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project
> this year
> >>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
> >>>
> >>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the
> $30k budget
> >>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre
> Application”
> >> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a
> co-ordinator, projects
> >> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period
> starts in
> >> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding
> for one
> >> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will
> be able to
> >> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the
> question of
> >> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t
> paying for
> >> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run
> and just ask
> >> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the
> understanding that
> >> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not
> be spent if
> >> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year
> and if a
> >> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to
> Outreachy then
> >> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
> >>
> >> Niall
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
> >>>
> >>> -Bertrand
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>.
Hi Everyone - It seems we have consensus to ask for budget we can dedicate
to Outreachy interns regardless of the specifics on the execution. I'll go
ahead and leave the item in the budget request for $30k.
I'm going to focus now on sending the budget request, after that I'd like
to come back to find a champion (or champions) and hone a plan to achieve
this.
Thank you all.
G
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 10:49, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until Monday, but
> wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today.
>
> (FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer
> than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to
> dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible in
> public.)
>
> CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions.
>
>
> # Summary
>
> * I support the initiative overall.
> * I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but
> * I think external funding for interns should be the goal (Option 2).
> * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I propose
> PonyMail.
> * This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra
> staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate 5h/week)
> because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load we'd be
> asking of them.
> * My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be Outreachy's
> main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as I can.
> * Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it shorter :(
>
>
> # On Outreachy
>
> As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in
> under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain
> themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can
> successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a
> core focus on *coding*.
>
> One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many years to
> achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs successful
> in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in this!
> They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully the ASF
> shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their
> suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big
> profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose to them.
>
> Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean
> they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We
> get interviewed, too. :)
>
>
> # So what project or projects make sense?
>
> I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in each of
> the two cohorts.
>
> We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't started
> to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these
> lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial
> run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate here,
> and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us
> sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the
> Late January 2020 cohort.
>
> We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at the ASF,
> and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes PMC's
> lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or announce@a.o),
> but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not*
> our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds, in my
> opinion.
>
> We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF
> contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong value
> outside the ASF as well would be best.
>
> Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website redesigns,
> training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best
> opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's precisely this
> "work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented
> individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a
> diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the
> wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked like
> we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed
> this, just saying.)
>
> Things that touch the most people possible, AND have external-to-Apache
> users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the
> best central project here. Can anyone think of others?
>
>
> # On Mentoring
>
> Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by
> Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their
> hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for the huge
> number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked
> and underpaid.)
>
> Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail,
> let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the
> expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time
> and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like
> Department A paying Department B.
>
> This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work
> together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too, would look
> really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large).
>
> So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive (even if
> PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a number you
> can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we don't
> have to spend the money if it doesn't work out.
>
>
> # On the ASF funding question
>
> No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to
> contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic
> means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as "money
> for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here - even
> if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad precedent to
> set, and might even endanger our non-profit status.
>
> (I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to
> another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable initiative -
> anyone know?)
>
> This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra staff
> mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I also
> support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is
> seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year
> D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with
> Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come up with
> the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage with a
> sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success.
>
> One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I could
> see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the
> Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and
> other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen.
>
>
> -Joan
>
>
>
> On 2019-06-12 2:16 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> > I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states that
> > the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
> >
> > Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program
> etc.
> >
> > I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they
> > will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have done
> > the program can share more info?
> >
> > A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the
> budget
> > request and program.
> >
> > [1] Outreachy.org
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
> >>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
> >>>
> >>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
> >>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application”
> >> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator,
> projects
> >> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in
> >> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
> >> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able
> to
> >> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of
> >> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying
> for
> >> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just
> ask
> >> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding
> that
> >> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent
> if
> >> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
> >> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
> >> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
> >>
> >> Niall
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
> >>>
> >>> -Bertrand
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
thank you for your comprehensive email, Joan. this all reasonable good to me
On Thu 13. Jun 2019 at 19:49, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until Monday, but
> wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today.
>
> (FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer
> than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to
> dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible in
> public.)
>
> CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions.
>
>
> # Summary
>
> * I support the initiative overall.
> * I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but
> * I think external funding for interns should be the goal (Option 2).
> * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I propose
> PonyMail.
> * This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra
> staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate 5h/week)
> because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load we'd be
> asking of them.
> * My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be Outreachy's
> main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as I can.
> * Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it shorter :(
>
>
> # On Outreachy
>
> As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in
> under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain
> themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can
> successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a
> core focus on *coding*.
>
> One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many years to
> achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs successful
> in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in this!
> They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully the ASF
> shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their
> suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big
> profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose to them.
>
> Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean
> they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We
> get interviewed, too. :)
>
>
> # So what project or projects make sense?
>
> I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in each of
> the two cohorts.
>
> We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't started
> to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these
> lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial
> run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate here,
> and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us
> sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the
> Late January 2020 cohort.
>
> We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at the ASF,
> and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes PMC's
> lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or announce@a.o),
> but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not*
> our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds, in my
> opinion.
>
> We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF
> contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong value
> outside the ASF as well would be best.
>
> Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website redesigns,
> training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best
> opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's precisely this
> "work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented
> individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a
> diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the
> wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked like
> we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed
> this, just saying.)
>
> Things that touch the most people possible, AND have external-to-Apache
> users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the
> best central project here. Can anyone think of others?
>
>
> # On Mentoring
>
> Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by
> Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their
> hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for the huge
> number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked
> and underpaid.)
>
> Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail,
> let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the
> expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time
> and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like
> Department A paying Department B.
>
> This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work
> together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too, would look
> really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large).
>
> So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive (even if
> PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a number you
> can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we don't
> have to spend the money if it doesn't work out.
>
>
> # On the ASF funding question
>
> No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to
> contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic
> means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as "money
> for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here - even
> if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad precedent to
> set, and might even endanger our non-profit status.
>
> (I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to
> another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable initiative -
> anyone know?)
>
> This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra staff
> mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I also
> support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is
> seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year
> D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with
> Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come up with
> the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage with a
> sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success.
>
> One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I could
> see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the
> Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and
> other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen.
>
>
> -Joan
>
>
>
> On 2019-06-12 2:16 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> > I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states that
> > the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
> >
> > Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program
> etc.
> >
> > I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they
> > will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have done
> > the program can share more info?
> >
> > A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the
> budget
> > request and program.
> >
> > [1] Outreachy.org
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
> >>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
> >>>
> >>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
> >>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application”
> >> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator,
> projects
> >> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in
> >> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
> >> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able
> to
> >> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of
> >> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying
> for
> >> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just
> ask
> >> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding
> that
> >> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent
> if
> >> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
> >> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
> >> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
> >>
> >> Niall
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
> >>>
> >>> -Bertrand
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:49 PM Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until Monday, but
> wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today.
>
> (FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer
> than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to
> dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible in public.)
>
> CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions.
>
>
> # Summary
>
> * I support the initiative overall.
> * I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but
> * I think external funding for interns should be the goal (Option 2).
> * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I propose
> PonyMail.
> * This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra
> staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate 5h/week)
> because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load we'd be
> asking of them.
> * My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be Outreachy's
> main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as I can.
> * Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it shorter :(
>
>
> # On Outreachy
>
> As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in
> under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain
> themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can
> successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a
> core focus on *coding*.
>
> One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many years to
> achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs successful
> in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in this!
> They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully the ASF
> shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their
> suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big
> profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose to them.
>
> Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean
> they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We
> get interviewed, too. :)
>
>
> # So what project or projects make sense?
>
> I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in each of
> the two cohorts.
>
> We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't started
> to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these
> lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial
> run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate here,
> and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us
> sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the
> Late January 2020 cohort.
>
> We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at the ASF,
> and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes PMC's
> lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or announce@a.o),
> but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not*
> our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds, in my
> opinion.
>
> We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF
> contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong value
> outside the ASF as well would be best.
>
> Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website redesigns,
> training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best
> opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's precisely this
> "work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented
> individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a
> diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the
> wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked like
> we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed
> this, just saying.)
>
> Things that touch the most people possible, AND have external-to-Apache
> users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the
> best central project here. Can anyone think of others?
>
>
> # On Mentoring
>
> Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by
> Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their
> hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for the huge
> number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked
> and underpaid.)
>
> Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail,
> let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the
> expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time
> and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like
> Department A paying Department B.
>
> This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work
> together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too, would look
> really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large).
>
> So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive (even if
> PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a number you
> can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we don't
> have to spend the money if it doesn't work out.
>
>
> # On the ASF funding question
>
> No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to
> contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic
> means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as "money
> for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here - even
> if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad precedent to
> set, and might even endanger our non-profit status.
>
> (I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to
> another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable initiative -
> anyone know?)
>
> This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra staff
> mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I also
> support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is
> seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year
> D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with
> Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come up with
> the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage with a
> sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success.
>
> One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I could
> see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the
> Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and
> other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen.
>
I think Joan very much has the right idea here. So, tech-oriented
makes sense to me, and there are a large number of Apache projects
that could be extremely beneficial for the intern. However, I think
the selection process needs to start with buy-in from the affected
group. You're going to need the mentor to essentially sign up to doing
this work. Otherwise dropping off volunteers on a project's doorstep
is likely to end up a bad experience for all. I've seen this situation
happen in the past at another open source project and its overwhelming
for everyone involved.
Just to add to the discussion for better understanding. Infrastructure
doesn't even operate lists.a.o - our ponymail instance is outsourced.
Ponymail is a standalone PMC, and Infrastructure has no official
relationship there - though a Ponymail volunteer is also a
Infrastructure staff member. As a matter of policy, Infra generally
doesn't contribute code to ASF projects. As a result you won't find us
generally contributing code to Whimsy, Kibble, Ponymail, Tomcat, or
httpd, even though we use all of them. (What folks do on their
personal time is another matter). Infra staff members are also
generally not developers by trade or training - in fact over half of
our staff members have no commit privileges on any Apache project.
The other complicating factor is that we're still onboarding two new
staff members, and that's consuming a lot of additional cycles right
now. All other factors excluded, I don't think we'd be in a place to
have the time to do this well. So, please don't count on us
participating.
--David
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until Monday, but
wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today.
(FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer
than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to
dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible in public.)
CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions.
# Summary
* I support the initiative overall.
* I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but
* I think external funding for interns should be the goal (Option 2).
* Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I propose
PonyMail.
* This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra
staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate 5h/week)
because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load we'd be
asking of them.
* My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be Outreachy's
main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as I can.
* Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it shorter :(
# On Outreachy
As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in
under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain
themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can
successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a
core focus on *coding*.
One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many years to
achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs successful
in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in this!
They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully the ASF
shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their
suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big
profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose to them.
Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean
they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We
get interviewed, too. :)
# So what project or projects make sense?
I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in each of
the two cohorts.
We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't started
to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these
lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial
run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate here,
and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us
sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the
Late January 2020 cohort.
We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at the ASF,
and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes PMC's
lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or announce@a.o),
but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not*
our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds, in my
opinion.
We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF
contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong value
outside the ASF as well would be best.
Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website redesigns,
training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best
opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's precisely this
"work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented
individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a
diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the
wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked like
we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed
this, just saying.)
Things that touch the most people possible, AND have external-to-Apache
users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the
best central project here. Can anyone think of others?
# On Mentoring
Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by
Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their
hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for the huge
number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked
and underpaid.)
Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail,
let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the
expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time
and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like
Department A paying Department B.
This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work
together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too, would look
really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large).
So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive (even if
PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a number you
can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we don't
have to spend the money if it doesn't work out.
# On the ASF funding question
No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to
contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic
means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as "money
for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here - even
if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad precedent to
set, and might even endanger our non-profit status.
(I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to
another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable initiative -
anyone know?)
This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra staff
mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I also
support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is
seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year
D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with
Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come up with
the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage with a
sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success.
One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I could
see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the
Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and
other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen.
-Joan
On 2019-06-12 2:16 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states that
> the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
>
> Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program etc.
>
> I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they
> will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have done
> the program can share more info?
>
> A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the budget
> request and program.
>
> [1] Outreachy.org
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com> wrote:
>>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
>>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>>>
>>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
>>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
>>
>>
>> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application”
>> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator, projects
>> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in
>> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
>> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able to
>> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of
>> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying for
>> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just ask
>> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding that
>> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent if
>> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
>> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
>> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>
>
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
I'm afraid I don't know what option 1 or option 2 are.
If you asked me to add a line item for Outreachy for ~2 interns, I'd
vote yes. If you asked for closer to 10, I'd say no, I simply don't
think we have enough mentors to support that many interns. To me, it's
not the money, it's the ability to support the interns because I see how
much work it takes for GSOC..
Regards,
KAM
On 6/12/2019 3:50 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> The discussion so far has been helpful to inform a decision, however I just
> want to remind us that we need to get consensus on whether we put a line
> for this budget request or not. Please vote on option 1 or 2. If there are
> no votes, I'll default to option 2: no request.
>
> Please state your vote clearly.
>
> Thanks
> G
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 05:16, Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states that
>> the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
>>
>> Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program etc.
>>
>> I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they
>> will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have done
>> the program can share more info?
>>
>> A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the
>> budget request and program.
>>
>> [1] Outreachy.org
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
>>>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>>>>
>>>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
>>>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
>>>
>>> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application”
>>> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator, projects
>>> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in
>>> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
>>> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able to
>>> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of
>>> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying for
>>> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just ask
>>> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding that
>>> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent if
>>> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
>>> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
>>> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>>>>
>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>.
The discussion so far has been helpful to inform a decision, however I just
want to remind us that we need to get consensus on whether we put a line
for this budget request or not. Please vote on option 1 or 2. If there are
no votes, I'll default to option 2: no request.
Please state your vote clearly.
Thanks
G
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 05:16, Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com> wrote:
> I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states that
> the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
>
> Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program etc.
>
> I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they
> will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have done
> the program can share more info?
>
> A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the
> budget request and program.
>
> [1] Outreachy.org
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
>>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>>>
>>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
>>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
>>
>>
>> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application”
>> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator, projects
>> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in
>> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
>> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able to
>> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of
>> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying for
>> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just ask
>> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding that
>> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent if
>> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
>> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
>> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com.INVALID>.
I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states that
the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel.
Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program etc.
I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they
will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have done
the program can share more info?
A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the budget
request and program.
[1] Outreachy.org
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com> wrote:
>> > ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>>
>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
>
>
> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application”
> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator, projects
> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in
> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able to
> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of
> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying for
> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just ask
> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding that
> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent if
> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
>
> Niall
>
>
>
>>
>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com> wrote:
> > ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year
> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
>
> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application”
period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator, projects
willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in
Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one
intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able to
connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of
how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying for
interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just ask
for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding that
this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent if
Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a
solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then
hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly.
Niall
>
> This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: (Input needed by 6/13 EOD) Decision on budget request for an
Outreachy pilot
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com> wrote:
> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request...
Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget
with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it.
This would give us time to better define the project and needs.
-Bertrand