You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> on 2019/06/29 14:47:05 UTC
Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying
for code? Is that acceptable?)
Can I get a summary of all of these Outreachy threads? I'm not on private@diversity and I think I've read every email on this list, but I'm seeing numbers like $10.5K being discussed and I have no clue where that number came from. I'm on fundraising@ as well and still don't recall any source for those numbers. Also, I thought that there was more than one entity that was willing to donate directly to Outreachy and there was only one or two ASF sponsors who were unable to redirect their money directly to Outreachy, so I don't understand why we are still having these long discussions.
I thought that if some entity was to donate money directly to Outreachy that there were no objections from anybody even if it benefited one or a few ASF projects and not others. I would hope that would be the recommended workflow.
If it turns out there are some entities that are ok with the money they donated to the ASF going to Outreachy but for some reason can't directly donate to Outreachy, I would hope that we would make it clear that this workflow is not our recommended workflow but we would redirect some of their money to Outreachy and either let Outreachy pick which ASF project gets an intern, or can we document somewhere that this money was donated "on behalf of Entity X".
And then, IMO, the ASF is not paying for code. Can we all agree to that and get going on Outreachy?
It was interesting to see it pointed out that there is a financial barrier to entry at the ASF. It would be nice if the ASF could find a way to help lower that barrier without "paying for code", but maybe we should put that in its own thread and spend more time brainstorming on that while we get going on Outreachy. IMO, the ASF has other barriers as well. Every ASF project I've looked at is huge compared to many of the projects I've seen on Github, so the learning curve may be tilted against inexperienced programmers and they may need a more expensive computer to build the source without it affecting the interns productivity. But even then, the entities donating directly to Outreachy could fund that more expensive computer. The ASF should not feel obligated to take on smaller projects just to make Outreachy interns more successful. Contributing code to the ASF is more like becoming a commercial truck driver, contributing to GitHub is more like becoming a ride-share driver.
One thought on the financial barrier before I forget: the ASF offers VMs to projects. Could they offer laptops as well?
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On 2019/06/29 15:57:48, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:47 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: think having sponsors giving us untargeted donations and
> us deciding at what levels we wish to be involved and whether or not
> we should continue would be a much better approach than having 30
> individuals go off (like I did) and fund one to eight interns each
> (these are the published sponsorship levels that Outreachy offers).
>
Since the former directly conflicts with a long standing Apache policy and the latter does not (and could easily be handling by coordinating with fundraising) my opinion is the exact opposite. Much easier, much less controversial, no worry about “optics” and, most importantly, no disregarding a 20+ policy for no benefit compared to the latter and no damage (real or potential) to our foundation and our products. I think the decision, and choice, is pretty obvious.
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology>.
Outreachy-specific terms are defined here:
https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/
Our documentation for mentors and coordinators is here:
https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/
https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/mentor-faq/
An "applicant" refers to people who are applying to be an Outreachy intern.
An applicant fills out an initial application, and (if the initial
application is approved) tries to make a contribution to a project. They
record that contribution in the Outreachy website. Then they fill out a
final application for each project they want to be considered an intern
for. Mentors review the final applications, contributions by those
applicants, and then make a decision as to which intern they want to select
for the project. If a mentor doesn't have any applicant who they want to
accept, they can decide not to pick any intern.
By "community" I mean "a loosely held set of free software projects, under
an umbrella organization". Mozilla is a community, even though its projects
include Firefox, Rust, and other web tools. Debian is a community comprised
of different projects; different Debian package maintainers participate as
mentors, as well as mentors from Debian-specific tool projects. So ASF
would be a "community" under which there were several different ASF member
projects.
The terminology is further confusing because an Outreachy "project" refers
to a specific internship project description. E.g. "Reseach user experience
on the ASF website" or "Add foo feature to bar tool". Mentors from ASF
member projects can each submit one or more Outreachy projects.
Sponsors are not typically involved in finding mentors. That's usually the
community coordinator's job. See the list of duties here:
https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/#coordinator
In the case of the ASF, there will need to be one or more community
coordinators who find mentors, and review and approve projects. I believe
the ASF was proposing to have the diversity committee (in addition to
others?) be the community coordinators who review projects based on the ASF
GSoC criteria, and additional criteria I've described elsewhere.
Sage Sharp
Outreachy Organizer
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:37 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/1/19, 6:01 AM, "Sage Sharp" <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
>
> Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community. Applicants
> pick
> which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
>
> Hi Sage,
>
> Mainly for my clarification: By "community" you mean a group like the ASF
> or other OS Foundations? At Apache we use "community" as the equivalent of
> "project". And is the "applicant" the intern? I thought the mentors had
> some say in the matching.
>
> One other question: Does each "community/foundation" need to make some
> formal agreement with Outreachy to have its projects find mentors and
> hopefully interns? Or do sponsors work directly with projects?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology>.
There are no formal agreements with the communities who participate. There
are some other agreements, which I've listed below, but I don't believe
there are any that require ASF board involvement.
There is an agreement that each mentor needs to sign when they select an
applicant to work with as an intern. This is an individual agreement that
is between the mentor and Outreachy's fiscal sponsor, the Software Freedom
Conservancy:
https://github.com/outreachy/website/blob/master/docs/mentor-agreement.md
Interns also have to sign an agreement when they accept the internship:
https://github.com/outreachy/website/blob/master/docs/intern-agreement.md
Everyone who makes an account on the Outreachy website (which includes
mentors, applicants, and interns) has to sign an agreement stating they
have read and understand the Outreachy Code of Conduct:
https://github.com/outreachy/website/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md
When a sponsor indicates that they wish to sponsor Outreachy, we make them
aware of our sponsor expectations (but we don't ask them to formally sign
an agreement):
- Sponsor's logo will be featured on the website for the round
sponsored, with suitable prominence by level of sponsorship. Sponsor shall
provide its logo to Outreachy organizers for the purpose of its display on
the Outreachy website. All sponsorship benefits are set out for the
applicable round on Outreachy’s website https://www.outreachy.org/sponsor
- (For sponsors of specific communities) Organizers will prioritize
using sponsorship funds for preferences expressed by Sponsor such as
internship stipends for a specific set of Free and Open Source Software
(FOSS) communities. When that preference becomes unavailable, such as a
community deciding not to accept an intern, an intern withdrawing from the
program, or an internship being terminated due to mentor feedback, the
Outreachy organizers will ask the sponsor for a second preference.
Outreachy organizers will use their best efforts to use the funds towards
that preference for up to two years, at which point the funds will be used
for any Outreachy activities.
- Sponsor shall not use the Outreachy logo, or any marks similar
thereto, in any marketing, advertising, press releases or public statements
without the prior written consent of the Outreachy organizers. Sponsors are
permitted to use the Outreachy name and unmodified logo in presentations
about their sponsorship of the program. Unless otherwise specified by
Sponsor, Outreachy will include Sponsor's name and mark where it indicates
sponsorship of the program.
- Sponsor acknowledges that Outreachy participants are contractors of
Software Freedom Conservancy and have no employment relationship to Sponsor.
Those are the only things I can think of which would fall under agreements.
I don't believe any of them would be something the ASF board would need to
be involved with.
Sage Sharp
Outreachy Organizer
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:45 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/3/19, 1:37 PM, "Ross Gardler" <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> Your questions are good ones and I'd like to hear the answers.
>
> However, please note that the current proposal does not need board
> approval. The committee has decided it is sensible to notify the board of
> intended actions because of some of the concerns raised. The intent is to
> assure the board that this proposal does not amount to paying for code.
>
> That's why I'm asking these questions of Sage/Outreachy. I want to verify
> that the committee only needs to notify. If there is some document that
> Outreachy needs someone at the ASF to sign before we can start this
> experiment, I would argue that the committee needs to shift gears to get
> that signature now.
>
> -Alex
> ________________________________
> From: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 1:28:17 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean
> we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
>
> Actually, Sam, that didn't answer my questions at all, but thanks for
> trying.
>
> I see that there are proposals being drafted for approval by the
> board, so my question to Sage was what kinds of approvals and contracts, if
> any, were made and signed by other foundations that Outreachy works with.
>
> And also, Sage made it sound to me that the applicant/intern makes the
> final decision on which project to work with which would greatly impact the
> text of the proposals and the discussion in general about how much the ASF
> is directing the sponsor's funds.
>
> IMO, without knowing the actual approvals/documents that Outreachy
> needs from the ASF, we can't know what to propose and how difficult it will
> be to get that approval and/or signature.
>
> Or maybe I've missed those specifics in all of these emails.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 7/2/19, 4:18 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:37 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/1/19, 6:01 AM, "Sage Sharp" <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
> >
> > Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community.
> Applicants pick
> > which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
> >
> > Hi Sage,
> >
> > Mainly for my clarification: By "community" you mean a group
> like the ASF or other OS Foundations? At Apache we use "community" as the
> equivalent of "project". And is the "applicant" the intern? I thought the
> mentors had some say in the matching.
> >
> > One other question: Does each "community/foundation" need to
> make some formal agreement with Outreachy to have its projects find mentors
> and hopefully interns? Or do sponsors work directly with projects?
>
> Perhaps I can help. IBM will specify:
>
> $19,500 "Charitable donation for sponsorship of 3 intern(s) for
> the Apache Software Foundation community projects in the
> December 2019 Outreachy internship round"
>
> Beyond this, IBM will not otherwise participate in the process.
> Well,
> some employees might :-), but not as a part of the sponsorship but
> rather as a part of the ASF.
>
> The ASF will need to identify a number of projects for Outreachy to
> list on their site. It is important that those projects have
> mentors.
>
> For the December round, Outreachy will start accepting
> applications in
> September, so we should start encouraging projects to request to be
> added to the list soonish.
>
> I encourage people who are interested in attracting interns to read
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outreachy.org%2Fmentor%2Fmentor-faq%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C837310fd977c4d3082ee08d6fff63d09%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636977830425980419&sdata=b1pnnerLcZIqenQdSeXy1nGIpYJjq2qDHe87ExU%2Bavc%3D&reserved=0
>
> Finally, should the ASF not be able to attract enough interns in
> the
> December round, no problem, we will have up to three more chances.
> From Outreachy's FAQ:
>
> Q: If I sponsor a specific FOSS community and that community
> doesn't
> find an intern, what happens?
> A: Sometimes FOSS communities don't have enough applicants, or
> their
> best applicant accepts another opportunity. Outreachy will try to
> encourage applicants towards communities that do not have enough
> applicants but we cannot guarantee that a community will find a
> suitable intern. We will use our best efforts to work with the
> sponsor
> and use the funds for that particular community or another that the
> sponsor prefers for two years, after which we'll use them for any
> Outreachy activity.
>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 7/3/19, 1:37 PM, "Ross Gardler" <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID> wrote:
Your questions are good ones and I'd like to hear the answers.
However, please note that the current proposal does not need board approval. The committee has decided it is sensible to notify the board of intended actions because of some of the concerns raised. The intent is to assure the board that this proposal does not amount to paying for code.
That's why I'm asking these questions of Sage/Outreachy. I want to verify that the committee only needs to notify. If there is some document that Outreachy needs someone at the ASF to sign before we can start this experiment, I would argue that the committee needs to shift gears to get that signature now.
-Alex
________________________________
From: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 1:28:17 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Actually, Sam, that didn't answer my questions at all, but thanks for trying.
I see that there are proposals being drafted for approval by the board, so my question to Sage was what kinds of approvals and contracts, if any, were made and signed by other foundations that Outreachy works with.
And also, Sage made it sound to me that the applicant/intern makes the final decision on which project to work with which would greatly impact the text of the proposals and the discussion in general about how much the ASF is directing the sponsor's funds.
IMO, without knowing the actual approvals/documents that Outreachy needs from the ASF, we can't know what to propose and how difficult it will be to get that approval and/or signature.
Or maybe I've missed those specifics in all of these emails.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 7/2/19, 4:18 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:37 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 7/1/19, 6:01 AM, "Sage Sharp" <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
>
> Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community. Applicants pick
> which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
>
> Hi Sage,
>
> Mainly for my clarification: By "community" you mean a group like the ASF or other OS Foundations? At Apache we use "community" as the equivalent of "project". And is the "applicant" the intern? I thought the mentors had some say in the matching.
>
> One other question: Does each "community/foundation" need to make some formal agreement with Outreachy to have its projects find mentors and hopefully interns? Or do sponsors work directly with projects?
Perhaps I can help. IBM will specify:
$19,500 "Charitable donation for sponsorship of 3 intern(s) for
the Apache Software Foundation community projects in the
December 2019 Outreachy internship round"
Beyond this, IBM will not otherwise participate in the process. Well,
some employees might :-), but not as a part of the sponsorship but
rather as a part of the ASF.
The ASF will need to identify a number of projects for Outreachy to
list on their site. It is important that those projects have mentors.
For the December round, Outreachy will start accepting applications in
September, so we should start encouraging projects to request to be
added to the list soonish.
I encourage people who are interested in attracting interns to read
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outreachy.org%2Fmentor%2Fmentor-faq%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C837310fd977c4d3082ee08d6fff63d09%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636977830425980419&sdata=b1pnnerLcZIqenQdSeXy1nGIpYJjq2qDHe87ExU%2Bavc%3D&reserved=0
Finally, should the ASF not be able to attract enough interns in the
December round, no problem, we will have up to three more chances.
From Outreachy's FAQ:
Q: If I sponsor a specific FOSS community and that community doesn't
find an intern, what happens?
A: Sometimes FOSS communities don't have enough applicants, or their
best applicant accepts another opportunity. Outreachy will try to
encourage applicants towards communities that do not have enough
applicants but we cannot guarantee that a community will find a
suitable intern. We will use our best efforts to work with the sponsor
and use the funds for that particular community or another that the
sponsor prefers for two years, after which we'll use them for any
Outreachy activity.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
Your questions are good ones and I'd like to hear the answers.
However, please note that the current proposal does not need board approval. The committee has decided it is sensible to notify the board of intended actions because of some of the concerns raised. The intent is to assure the board that this proposal does not amount to paying for code.
Of course the board may have a different view on this, but that's a conversation some of us will take up on the board list once the proposal lands there.
Since the proposal is merely to provide volunteer mentors and volunteer support to interns that come to us via Outreachy there is nothing, IMHO, for the board to approve. Our volunteers are free to spend their volunteer time however they wish.
As for the money aspect that is for the sponsors of Outreachy to address with Outreachy. In the current proposal the ASF has nothing to do with it.
Ross
Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
________________________________
From: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 1:28:17 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Actually, Sam, that didn't answer my questions at all, but thanks for trying.
I see that there are proposals being drafted for approval by the board, so my question to Sage was what kinds of approvals and contracts, if any, were made and signed by other foundations that Outreachy works with.
And also, Sage made it sound to me that the applicant/intern makes the final decision on which project to work with which would greatly impact the text of the proposals and the discussion in general about how much the ASF is directing the sponsor's funds.
IMO, without knowing the actual approvals/documents that Outreachy needs from the ASF, we can't know what to propose and how difficult it will be to get that approval and/or signature.
Or maybe I've missed those specifics in all of these emails.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 7/2/19, 4:18 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:37 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 7/1/19, 6:01 AM, "Sage Sharp" <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
>
> Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community. Applicants pick
> which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
>
> Hi Sage,
>
> Mainly for my clarification: By "community" you mean a group like the ASF or other OS Foundations? At Apache we use "community" as the equivalent of "project". And is the "applicant" the intern? I thought the mentors had some say in the matching.
>
> One other question: Does each "community/foundation" need to make some formal agreement with Outreachy to have its projects find mentors and hopefully interns? Or do sponsors work directly with projects?
Perhaps I can help. IBM will specify:
$19,500 "Charitable donation for sponsorship of 3 intern(s) for
the Apache Software Foundation community projects in the
December 2019 Outreachy internship round"
Beyond this, IBM will not otherwise participate in the process. Well,
some employees might :-), but not as a part of the sponsorship but
rather as a part of the ASF.
The ASF will need to identify a number of projects for Outreachy to
list on their site. It is important that those projects have mentors.
For the December round, Outreachy will start accepting applications in
September, so we should start encouraging projects to request to be
added to the list soonish.
I encourage people who are interested in attracting interns to read
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outreachy.org%2Fmentor%2Fmentor-faq%2F&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C5fbe6e878e564640903608d6fff50575%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636977825156582436&sdata=BxosqdrIfpJPdw7Nt6x%2FCjlRov%2B8FzK4s7oY1D5cB3k%3D&reserved=0
Finally, should the ASF not be able to attract enough interns in the
December round, no problem, we will have up to three more chances.
From Outreachy's FAQ:
Q: If I sponsor a specific FOSS community and that community doesn't
find an intern, what happens?
A: Sometimes FOSS communities don't have enough applicants, or their
best applicant accepts another opportunity. Outreachy will try to
encourage applicants towards communities that do not have enough
applicants but we cannot guarantee that a community will find a
suitable intern. We will use our best efforts to work with the sponsor
and use the funds for that particular community or another that the
sponsor prefers for two years, after which we'll use them for any
Outreachy activity.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Actually, Sam, that didn't answer my questions at all, but thanks for trying.
I see that there are proposals being drafted for approval by the board, so my question to Sage was what kinds of approvals and contracts, if any, were made and signed by other foundations that Outreachy works with.
And also, Sage made it sound to me that the applicant/intern makes the final decision on which project to work with which would greatly impact the text of the proposals and the discussion in general about how much the ASF is directing the sponsor's funds.
IMO, without knowing the actual approvals/documents that Outreachy needs from the ASF, we can't know what to propose and how difficult it will be to get that approval and/or signature.
Or maybe I've missed those specifics in all of these emails.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 7/2/19, 4:18 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:37 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 7/1/19, 6:01 AM, "Sage Sharp" <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
>
> Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community. Applicants pick
> which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
>
> Hi Sage,
>
> Mainly for my clarification: By "community" you mean a group like the ASF or other OS Foundations? At Apache we use "community" as the equivalent of "project". And is the "applicant" the intern? I thought the mentors had some say in the matching.
>
> One other question: Does each "community/foundation" need to make some formal agreement with Outreachy to have its projects find mentors and hopefully interns? Or do sponsors work directly with projects?
Perhaps I can help. IBM will specify:
$19,500 "Charitable donation for sponsorship of 3 intern(s) for
the Apache Software Foundation community projects in the
December 2019 Outreachy internship round"
Beyond this, IBM will not otherwise participate in the process. Well,
some employees might :-), but not as a part of the sponsorship but
rather as a part of the ASF.
The ASF will need to identify a number of projects for Outreachy to
list on their site. It is important that those projects have mentors.
For the December round, Outreachy will start accepting applications in
September, so we should start encouraging projects to request to be
added to the list soonish.
I encourage people who are interested in attracting interns to read
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outreachy.org%2Fmentor%2Fmentor-faq%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C33ed67861ab84ef08b2e08d6fedef525%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636976630914202192&sdata=LsSzzkVQByPoftWZ3bL7h%2BpVBBnxNjo%2F2Qm7BM37%2B6c%3D&reserved=0
Finally, should the ASF not be able to attract enough interns in the
December round, no problem, we will have up to three more chances.
From Outreachy's FAQ:
Q: If I sponsor a specific FOSS community and that community doesn't
find an intern, what happens?
A: Sometimes FOSS communities don't have enough applicants, or their
best applicant accepts another opportunity. Outreachy will try to
encourage applicants towards communities that do not have enough
applicants but we cannot guarantee that a community will find a
suitable intern. We will use our best efforts to work with the sponsor
and use the funds for that particular community or another that the
sponsor prefers for two years, after which we'll use them for any
Outreachy activity.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:37 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 7/1/19, 6:01 AM, "Sage Sharp" <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
>
> Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community. Applicants pick
> which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
>
> Hi Sage,
>
> Mainly for my clarification: By "community" you mean a group like the ASF or other OS Foundations? At Apache we use "community" as the equivalent of "project". And is the "applicant" the intern? I thought the mentors had some say in the matching.
>
> One other question: Does each "community/foundation" need to make some formal agreement with Outreachy to have its projects find mentors and hopefully interns? Or do sponsors work directly with projects?
Perhaps I can help. IBM will specify:
$19,500 "Charitable donation for sponsorship of 3 intern(s) for
the Apache Software Foundation community projects in the
December 2019 Outreachy internship round"
Beyond this, IBM will not otherwise participate in the process. Well,
some employees might :-), but not as a part of the sponsorship but
rather as a part of the ASF.
The ASF will need to identify a number of projects for Outreachy to
list on their site. It is important that those projects have mentors.
For the December round, Outreachy will start accepting applications in
September, so we should start encouraging projects to request to be
added to the list soonish.
I encourage people who are interested in attracting interns to read
https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/mentor-faq/
Finally, should the ASF not be able to attract enough interns in the
December round, no problem, we will have up to three more chances.
From Outreachy's FAQ:
Q: If I sponsor a specific FOSS community and that community doesn't
find an intern, what happens?
A: Sometimes FOSS communities don't have enough applicants, or their
best applicant accepts another opportunity. Outreachy will try to
encourage applicants towards communities that do not have enough
applicants but we cannot guarantee that a community will find a
suitable intern. We will use our best efforts to work with the sponsor
and use the funds for that particular community or another that the
sponsor prefers for two years, after which we'll use them for any
Outreachy activity.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 7/1/19, 6:01 AM, "Sage Sharp" <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community. Applicants pick
which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
Hi Sage,
Mainly for my clarification: By "community" you mean a group like the ASF or other OS Foundations? At Apache we use "community" as the equivalent of "project". And is the "applicant" the intern? I thought the mentors had some say in the matching.
One other question: Does each "community/foundation" need to make some formal agreement with Outreachy to have its projects find mentors and hopefully interns? Or do sponsors work directly with projects?
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology>.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 11:18 PM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a
> participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate
> money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here?
>
> What if I wasn't a member?
>
> What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF
> doing that?
>
Outreachy sponsors do not get a say in which specific project they are
funding. They can only direct towards a community. We've turned down
sponsors that want to claim a specific Linux kernel project was funded by
them, for example. It's too complicated, politics often get involved, so
Outreachy does not allow that.
Sponsors fund the Outreachy general fund or a community. Applicants pick
which project to work on. That's been explained elsewhere.
Sage Sharp
Outreachy Organizer
> What if the intern decides?
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
>
> Alex,
>
> I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
> induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF and
> then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven) hand
> in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
> there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I
> don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice
> in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might be
> as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and
> then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
>
> That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
> that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
> check.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> > of the funds from the beginning to the end
> >
> > I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money directly
> > to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds
> from
> > the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or harmful.
> > IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence other
> > entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless you
> > have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> > authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead of
> > just lobbying/influencing.
> >
> > Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey Ross,
I'll adjust accordingly: I'll make this a proposal to notify the board
rather than a request for approval.
Best,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 9:39 AM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> Thanks Myrle.
>
> For the record I don't believe the board needs to apporove anything in
> what I understand the compromise to be. No policy changes, no overhead on
> the foundation other than volunteer time freely given.
>
> Of course we do need to ensure what I believe the proposal to be is the
> same as what others believe. But we can do that right here without explicit
> board approval. Thank you for volunteering to write it up.
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 12:23:17 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
>
> Hey Ross,
>
> I think the reason is simply that we've talked ourselves into knots. I'm
> going to take this JFDI baton that I see lying here (oops, I mean the JDI
> baton) and run with it. Here's what I'm going to do:
>
> * start a [DISCUSS] thread containing a concrete proposal for the board
> which keeps money which pays for code off of the foundation books.
> * allow the discussion to run as long as *new* points are being made.
> Repeating old points will not prevent me from moving on to the next step
> which is...
> * start a [VOTE] thread to run for 72 hours.
> * If the vote passes submit a request for approval to the board.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:56 AM Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > OK. Thanks for the clarification Ted.
> >
> > I am still trying to understand why the proposed compromise position of
> > the ASF offering to find mentors for Outreachy interns without offering
> or
> > soliciting donations, is not moving forwards.
> >
> > I do understand why the ASF donating monies to Outreachy isn't moving
> > forward. I also understand why soliciting for donations to Outreachy is
> > probably a step too far right now. But I don't understand why we can't
> move
> > forwards at all.
> >
> > Can anyone tell me why we can't take a step forward here. I've not heard
> a
> > single voice in opposition of the compromise solution described above. I
> > may have missed it in the noise, I'm sorry if I did. If anyone here has a
> > concern with the compromise as a small reversible step please speak up.
> >
> > Otherwise I hope we can simply get on with that small reversible step and
> > put some energy into being constructive.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 11:31:17 PM
> > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> > are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > No. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't donate due to being a member
> > of the ASF.
> >
> > I drew no conclusions. I am merely trying to simplify and clarify some
> > statements others have made. My hope was to calm down the discussion and
> I
> > appreciate you pointing out that I was unclear.
> >
> > If you want to know my position, I personally don't have any problem with
> > external donations from any source to Outreachy being earmarked for ASF
> and
> > then having ASF designate through a GSOC-like process where the interns
> > actually work.
> >
> > In fact, I also personally don't have any problem with the ASF
> maintaining
> > a special fund that is separate from all normal donations which functions
> > something like a very short-term endowment specifically for interns to be
> > funded and directed using the same mechanism. I see both mechanisms as
> > essentially equivalent (and equivalently non-problematic). I agree that
> the
> > ASF should not fund coders except for very limited circumstances, but I
> > think that infra, web-site and very carefully controlled internships are
> > reasonable exceptions.
> >
> > Even though I find no problem with the second approach (with appropriate
> > controls), I also understand that others feel differently and some of
> those
> > others are on the board with me and thus will have a vote on the matter.
> No
> > matter what, I am happy to find a common ground if we can and have no
> > desire for a flamewar on the matter.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mostly, though, I have been listening rather than arguing.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:18 PM Ross Gardler
> > <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a
> > > participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate
> > > money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here?
> > >
> > > What if I wasn't a member?
> > >
> > > What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF
> > > doing that?
> > >
> > > What if the intern decides?
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM
> > > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> > > are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
> > >
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
> > > induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF
> > and
> > > then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven)
> > hand
> > > in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
> > > there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and
> I
> > > don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a
> voice
> > > in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might
> > be
> > > as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects
> and
> > > then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
> > >
> > > That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
> > > that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
> > > check.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> > > > of the funds from the beginning to the end
> > > >
> > > > I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money
> > directly
> > > > to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the
> funds
> > > from
> > > > the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or
> > harmful.
> > > > IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence
> > other
> > > > entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless
> > you
> > > > have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> > > > authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending"
> instead
> > of
> > > > just lobbying/influencing.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
Thanks Myrle.
For the record I don't believe the board needs to apporove anything in what I understand the compromise to be. No policy changes, no overhead on the foundation other than volunteer time freely given.
Of course we do need to ensure what I believe the proposal to be is the same as what others believe. But we can do that right here without explicit board approval. Thank you for volunteering to write it up.
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 12:23:17 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Hey Ross,
I think the reason is simply that we've talked ourselves into knots. I'm
going to take this JFDI baton that I see lying here (oops, I mean the JDI
baton) and run with it. Here's what I'm going to do:
* start a [DISCUSS] thread containing a concrete proposal for the board
which keeps money which pays for code off of the foundation books.
* allow the discussion to run as long as *new* points are being made.
Repeating old points will not prevent me from moving on to the next step
which is...
* start a [VOTE] thread to run for 72 hours.
* If the vote passes submit a request for approval to the board.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:56 AM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> OK. Thanks for the clarification Ted.
>
> I am still trying to understand why the proposed compromise position of
> the ASF offering to find mentors for Outreachy interns without offering or
> soliciting donations, is not moving forwards.
>
> I do understand why the ASF donating monies to Outreachy isn't moving
> forward. I also understand why soliciting for donations to Outreachy is
> probably a step too far right now. But I don't understand why we can't move
> forwards at all.
>
> Can anyone tell me why we can't take a step forward here. I've not heard a
> single voice in opposition of the compromise solution described above. I
> may have missed it in the noise, I'm sorry if I did. If anyone here has a
> concern with the compromise as a small reversible step please speak up.
>
> Otherwise I hope we can simply get on with that small reversible step and
> put some energy into being constructive.
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 11:31:17 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
>
> Ross,
>
> No. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't donate due to being a member
> of the ASF.
>
> I drew no conclusions. I am merely trying to simplify and clarify some
> statements others have made. My hope was to calm down the discussion and I
> appreciate you pointing out that I was unclear.
>
> If you want to know my position, I personally don't have any problem with
> external donations from any source to Outreachy being earmarked for ASF and
> then having ASF designate through a GSOC-like process where the interns
> actually work.
>
> In fact, I also personally don't have any problem with the ASF maintaining
> a special fund that is separate from all normal donations which functions
> something like a very short-term endowment specifically for interns to be
> funded and directed using the same mechanism. I see both mechanisms as
> essentially equivalent (and equivalently non-problematic). I agree that the
> ASF should not fund coders except for very limited circumstances, but I
> think that infra, web-site and very carefully controlled internships are
> reasonable exceptions.
>
> Even though I find no problem with the second approach (with appropriate
> controls), I also understand that others feel differently and some of those
> others are on the board with me and thus will have a vote on the matter. No
> matter what, I am happy to find a common ground if we can and have no
> desire for a flamewar on the matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mostly, though, I have been listening rather than arguing.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:18 PM Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a
> > participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate
> > money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here?
> >
> > What if I wasn't a member?
> >
> > What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF
> > doing that?
> >
> > What if the intern decides?
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM
> > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> > are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
> > induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF
> and
> > then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven)
> hand
> > in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
> > there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I
> > don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice
> > in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might
> be
> > as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and
> > then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
> >
> > That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
> > that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
> > check.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> > > of the funds from the beginning to the end
> > >
> > > I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money
> directly
> > > to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds
> > from
> > > the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or
> harmful.
> > > IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence
> other
> > > entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless
> you
> > > have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> > > authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead
> of
> > > just lobbying/influencing.
> > >
> > > Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey Ross,
I think the reason is simply that we've talked ourselves into knots. I'm
going to take this JFDI baton that I see lying here (oops, I mean the JDI
baton) and run with it. Here's what I'm going to do:
* start a [DISCUSS] thread containing a concrete proposal for the board
which keeps money which pays for code off of the foundation books.
* allow the discussion to run as long as *new* points are being made.
Repeating old points will not prevent me from moving on to the next step
which is...
* start a [VOTE] thread to run for 72 hours.
* If the vote passes submit a request for approval to the board.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:56 AM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> OK. Thanks for the clarification Ted.
>
> I am still trying to understand why the proposed compromise position of
> the ASF offering to find mentors for Outreachy interns without offering or
> soliciting donations, is not moving forwards.
>
> I do understand why the ASF donating monies to Outreachy isn't moving
> forward. I also understand why soliciting for donations to Outreachy is
> probably a step too far right now. But I don't understand why we can't move
> forwards at all.
>
> Can anyone tell me why we can't take a step forward here. I've not heard a
> single voice in opposition of the compromise solution described above. I
> may have missed it in the noise, I'm sorry if I did. If anyone here has a
> concern with the compromise as a small reversible step please speak up.
>
> Otherwise I hope we can simply get on with that small reversible step and
> put some energy into being constructive.
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 11:31:17 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
>
> Ross,
>
> No. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't donate due to being a member
> of the ASF.
>
> I drew no conclusions. I am merely trying to simplify and clarify some
> statements others have made. My hope was to calm down the discussion and I
> appreciate you pointing out that I was unclear.
>
> If you want to know my position, I personally don't have any problem with
> external donations from any source to Outreachy being earmarked for ASF and
> then having ASF designate through a GSOC-like process where the interns
> actually work.
>
> In fact, I also personally don't have any problem with the ASF maintaining
> a special fund that is separate from all normal donations which functions
> something like a very short-term endowment specifically for interns to be
> funded and directed using the same mechanism. I see both mechanisms as
> essentially equivalent (and equivalently non-problematic). I agree that the
> ASF should not fund coders except for very limited circumstances, but I
> think that infra, web-site and very carefully controlled internships are
> reasonable exceptions.
>
> Even though I find no problem with the second approach (with appropriate
> controls), I also understand that others feel differently and some of those
> others are on the board with me and thus will have a vote on the matter. No
> matter what, I am happy to find a common ground if we can and have no
> desire for a flamewar on the matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mostly, though, I have been listening rather than arguing.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:18 PM Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a
> > participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate
> > money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here?
> >
> > What if I wasn't a member?
> >
> > What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF
> > doing that?
> >
> > What if the intern decides?
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM
> > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> > are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
> > induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF
> and
> > then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven)
> hand
> > in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
> > there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I
> > don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice
> > in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might
> be
> > as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and
> > then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
> >
> > That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
> > that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
> > check.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> > > of the funds from the beginning to the end
> > >
> > > I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money
> directly
> > > to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds
> > from
> > > the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or
> harmful.
> > > IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence
> other
> > > entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless
> you
> > > have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> > > authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead
> of
> > > just lobbying/influencing.
> > >
> > > Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
OK. Thanks for the clarification Ted.
I am still trying to understand why the proposed compromise position of the ASF offering to find mentors for Outreachy interns without offering or soliciting donations, is not moving forwards.
I do understand why the ASF donating monies to Outreachy isn't moving forward. I also understand why soliciting for donations to Outreachy is probably a step too far right now. But I don't understand why we can't move forwards at all.
Can anyone tell me why we can't take a step forward here. I've not heard a single voice in opposition of the compromise solution described above. I may have missed it in the noise, I'm sorry if I did. If anyone here has a concern with the compromise as a small reversible step please speak up.
Otherwise I hope we can simply get on with that small reversible step and put some energy into being constructive.
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 11:31:17 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Ross,
No. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't donate due to being a member
of the ASF.
I drew no conclusions. I am merely trying to simplify and clarify some
statements others have made. My hope was to calm down the discussion and I
appreciate you pointing out that I was unclear.
If you want to know my position, I personally don't have any problem with
external donations from any source to Outreachy being earmarked for ASF and
then having ASF designate through a GSOC-like process where the interns
actually work.
In fact, I also personally don't have any problem with the ASF maintaining
a special fund that is separate from all normal donations which functions
something like a very short-term endowment specifically for interns to be
funded and directed using the same mechanism. I see both mechanisms as
essentially equivalent (and equivalently non-problematic). I agree that the
ASF should not fund coders except for very limited circumstances, but I
think that infra, web-site and very carefully controlled internships are
reasonable exceptions.
Even though I find no problem with the second approach (with appropriate
controls), I also understand that others feel differently and some of those
others are on the board with me and thus will have a vote on the matter. No
matter what, I am happy to find a common ground if we can and have no
desire for a flamewar on the matter.
Mostly, though, I have been listening rather than arguing.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:18 PM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a
> participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate
> money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here?
>
> What if I wasn't a member?
>
> What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF
> doing that?
>
> What if the intern decides?
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
>
> Alex,
>
> I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
> induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF and
> then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven) hand
> in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
> there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I
> don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice
> in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might be
> as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and
> then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
>
> That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
> that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
> check.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> > of the funds from the beginning to the end
> >
> > I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money directly
> > to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds
> from
> > the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or harmful.
> > IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence other
> > entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless you
> > have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> > authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead of
> > just lobbying/influencing.
> >
> > Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Ross,
No. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't donate due to being a member
of the ASF.
I drew no conclusions. I am merely trying to simplify and clarify some
statements others have made. My hope was to calm down the discussion and I
appreciate you pointing out that I was unclear.
If you want to know my position, I personally don't have any problem with
external donations from any source to Outreachy being earmarked for ASF and
then having ASF designate through a GSOC-like process where the interns
actually work.
In fact, I also personally don't have any problem with the ASF maintaining
a special fund that is separate from all normal donations which functions
something like a very short-term endowment specifically for interns to be
funded and directed using the same mechanism. I see both mechanisms as
essentially equivalent (and equivalently non-problematic). I agree that the
ASF should not fund coders except for very limited circumstances, but I
think that infra, web-site and very carefully controlled internships are
reasonable exceptions.
Even though I find no problem with the second approach (with appropriate
controls), I also understand that others feel differently and some of those
others are on the board with me and thus will have a vote on the matter. No
matter what, I am happy to find a common ground if we can and have no
desire for a flamewar on the matter.
Mostly, though, I have been listening rather than arguing.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:18 PM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a
> participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate
> money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here?
>
> What if I wasn't a member?
>
> What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF
> doing that?
>
> What if the intern decides?
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we
> are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
>
> Alex,
>
> I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
> induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF and
> then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven) hand
> in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
> there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I
> don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice
> in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might be
> as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and
> then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
>
> That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
> that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
> check.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> > of the funds from the beginning to the end
> >
> > I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money directly
> > to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds
> from
> > the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or harmful.
> > IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence other
> > entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless you
> > have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> > authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead of
> > just lobbying/influencing.
> >
> > Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here?
What if I wasn't a member?
What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF doing that?
What if the intern decides?
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Alex,
I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF and
then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven) hand
in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I
don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice
in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might be
as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and
then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
check.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> of the funds from the beginning to the end
>
> I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money directly
> to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds from
> the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or harmful.
> IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence other
> entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless you
> have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead of
> just lobbying/influencing.
>
> Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Alex,
I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we
induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF and
then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven) hand
in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that
there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I
don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice
in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might be
as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and
then accepting or rejecting intern candidates.
That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws
that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the
check.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
> of the funds from the beginning to the end
>
> I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money directly
> to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds from
> the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or harmful.
> IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence other
> entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless you
> have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing
> authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead of
> just lobbying/influencing.
>
> Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
of the funds from the beginning to the end
I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money directly to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds from the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or harmful. IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence other entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless you have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead of just lobbying/influencing.
Maybe we need to drill down on that first.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
thanks for your reply, Ted
to be clear: I have no interest in a moral or philosophical debate here. I
am as tired as anybody is with this endless bickering
the reason I sent my email anyway is because if this whole debate boils
down to "we must be cautious" vs "it's important that we change this", then
that, to me, seems like quite a different (and dare I say it, productive)
conversation to the one we've been having
"this is how we do it" isn't something you can argue with productively if
you want the ASF to start paying interns. and that conversation is going to
go in circles. as you point out, and as the activity on this list (and
others) has demonstrated
contrariwise, "we must be cautious!" *is* useful. I can work with that.
that sounds like the start of a negotiation
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 01:18, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Naomi,
>
> Yes. As I understand it, Jim's position is that we don't pay for project
> code because that is an axiom of the foundation.
>
> We don't need to discuss why that is or whether it is based on deeper
> truths or whether he is flexible on that point. It is his position and he
> vociferously repeats it and emphasizes his former board position and status
> as co-founder of the foundation as moral authority for the position
> whenever asked for a more nuanced discussion. We don't need more of that
> right now since we have heard many repetitions already.
>
> Various other people have variants of that position. Some believe that the
> position is motivated by a short chain of logic from a different axiom such
> as vendor independence or "we don't pick winners". The conclusion is
> roughly the same and the level of flexibility is similarly small.
>
> Other people have slightly different positions.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:12 PM Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> > based on the statements in your email, I will accept that "but we *do*
> pay
> > for some code so can't we make another exception!" and "we can make an
> > exception because we can maintain our neutrality in other ways" are
> invalid
> > arguments. you have made it clear that both of those things are
> irrelevant,
> > and I will take you at your word
> >
> > which brings me back to the only question I've had regarding this topic
> > since the start of this discussion: why should we continue to abide by
> this
> > principle? what value does it provide?
> >
> > the answer can't be anything to do with neutrality. you ruled that out
> > yourself. either neutrality is a side-effect of the principal or a
> > justification for the principal. but it can't be both
> >
> > it sounds to me as if you're arguing that because this is a "founding
> > principle" it does not need any further justification. but when I
> expressed
> > this on the list before, you ridiculed me
> >
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0e43e2b29e05443e352195d531306b4d68ada00a18fc677c8f6390f7@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
> >
> > so what's left? I mean, what are people really fighting for here besides
> > "that's what we've always done so that's what we must always do". this
> > isn't a facetious question. I am genuinely perplexed. so many genuinely
> > very intelligent people want to use to continue to abide by this
> principle
> > and the best explanation I can come up with is that this resistance to
> > change for the sake of caution
> >
> > being cautious, conservative with one's actions, etc, has its place. I
> > understand that. but if this is what people are concerned about, I wish
> > they'd just say it. it's a lot easier to have a productive discussion if
> > everybody's rationales are made clear
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 17:41, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2019/06/30 11:01:54, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have a strong tradition here of independence and being vendor
> > > > neutral. We don't pick winners and losers. "We don't pay for code"
> > > > is a useful approximation of those values. It has plenty of
> > > > exceptions, just like the ones that described in the link above.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, the principle is that we, the foundation, do not pay for
> > > development for Apache projects.
> > >
> > > Phrasing it as "we do not pay for code" is a shorthand, but does not,
> in
> > > fact, "define" the tenet. Saying that such things as paying contractors
> > for
> > > self-service Infra code is some sort of "exception" to that tenet, has
> > been
> > > debunked my several people, as has been explained by numerous people
> > > including Greg, our head of Infra, previous director and previous
> > Chairman.
> > > A logical outcome (effect) of that policy is that we are vendor
> neutral,
> > > but that is not the source of that tenet, but rather an extension of
> > > behaviors based on that tenet (we also have a duty to be vendor neutral
> > as
> > > well, due to our 501(c)3 status, but that is a related but different
> > point).
> > >
> > > Previous threads have made that distinction and clarification clear,
> and
> > > it has been confirmed by numerous people who have been officers,
> > founders,
> > > directors, etc.
> > >
> > > I would ask that those continuing to spread this misinformation, or
> > > mischaracterization of the actual facts, please stop doing so. Framing
> > the
> > > argument as "we do not pay for code, (when we obviously do)" and "the
> > core
> > > reason for this is neutrality" is incorrect and disingenuous and
> somewhat
> > > self-serving. It significantly harms the validity of their other
> > arguments
> > > and points of view which have value and useful insight, and requires
> > wasted
> > > time and energy for those who need to repeatedly set the facts and the
> > > record straight.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Sorry Rich (and any others).
I don't mean to imply that only Jim has that opinion. Jim is by far the
most vocal one lately about this point and it is easy to conflate him with
that position in speaking. That is a bit careless.
And as much as I might like to discuss principles, this discussion has
reached to point of exhaustion with no illumination. Let's all just back
away from this and come back to it another time with less heat.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:26 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/06/30 23:17:47, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Naomi,
> >
> > Yes. As I understand it, Jim's position is that we don't pay for project
> > code because that is an axiom of the foundation.
> >
>
>
> Right ... but this isn't just "Jim's position." It is, rather a principle
> that we have held from the beginning of the Foundation, and which is stated
> in pretty much ever Apache Way talk I've ever attended, because it is, as
> you say, an axiom of the foundation.
>
> Let's *please* not make this about Jim. Let's discuss principles, not
> personalities.
>
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 7/1/2019 6:26 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/06/30 23:17:47, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Naomi,
>>
>> Yes. As I understand it, Jim's position is that we don't pay for project
>> code because that is an axiom of the foundation.
>>
>
>
> Right ... but this isn't just "Jim's position." It is, rather a principle that we have held from the beginning of the Foundation, and which is stated in pretty much ever Apache Way talk I've ever attended, because it is, as you say, an axiom of the foundation.
>
> Let's *please* not make this about Jim. Let's discuss principles, not personalities.
>
I find the idea of any axioms other than producing open source software
for the public good very troubling, and scary for the long term survival
of the ASF. The more axioms an organization has, in addition to its
primary purpose, the greater the risk of the organization dying because
it cannot make a change that would have let it continue to achieve its
purpose.
Of course, an organization can have ways of doing things that have
worked well in the past, and should not be changed without very good
reasons, but those are tools, not axioms.
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org>.
On 2019/06/30 23:17:47, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Naomi,
>
> Yes. As I understand it, Jim's position is that we don't pay for project
> code because that is an axiom of the foundation.
>
Right ... but this isn't just "Jim's position." It is, rather a principle that we have held from the beginning of the Foundation, and which is stated in pretty much ever Apache Way talk I've ever attended, because it is, as you say, an axiom of the foundation.
Let's *please* not make this about Jim. Let's discuss principles, not personalities.
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Naomi,
Yes. As I understand it, Jim's position is that we don't pay for project
code because that is an axiom of the foundation.
We don't need to discuss why that is or whether it is based on deeper
truths or whether he is flexible on that point. It is his position and he
vociferously repeats it and emphasizes his former board position and status
as co-founder of the foundation as moral authority for the position
whenever asked for a more nuanced discussion. We don't need more of that
right now since we have heard many repetitions already.
Various other people have variants of that position. Some believe that the
position is motivated by a short chain of logic from a different axiom such
as vendor independence or "we don't pick winners". The conclusion is
roughly the same and the level of flexibility is similarly small.
Other people have slightly different positions.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:12 PM Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> based on the statements in your email, I will accept that "but we *do* pay
> for some code so can't we make another exception!" and "we can make an
> exception because we can maintain our neutrality in other ways" are invalid
> arguments. you have made it clear that both of those things are irrelevant,
> and I will take you at your word
>
> which brings me back to the only question I've had regarding this topic
> since the start of this discussion: why should we continue to abide by this
> principle? what value does it provide?
>
> the answer can't be anything to do with neutrality. you ruled that out
> yourself. either neutrality is a side-effect of the principal or a
> justification for the principal. but it can't be both
>
> it sounds to me as if you're arguing that because this is a "founding
> principle" it does not need any further justification. but when I expressed
> this on the list before, you ridiculed me
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0e43e2b29e05443e352195d531306b4d68ada00a18fc677c8f6390f7@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
>
> so what's left? I mean, what are people really fighting for here besides
> "that's what we've always done so that's what we must always do". this
> isn't a facetious question. I am genuinely perplexed. so many genuinely
> very intelligent people want to use to continue to abide by this principle
> and the best explanation I can come up with is that this resistance to
> change for the sake of caution
>
> being cautious, conservative with one's actions, etc, has its place. I
> understand that. but if this is what people are concerned about, I wish
> they'd just say it. it's a lot easier to have a productive discussion if
> everybody's rationales are made clear
>
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 17:41, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2019/06/30 11:01:54, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > > We have a strong tradition here of independence and being vendor
> > > neutral. We don't pick winners and losers. "We don't pay for code"
> > > is a useful approximation of those values. It has plenty of
> > > exceptions, just like the ones that described in the link above.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, the principle is that we, the foundation, do not pay for
> > development for Apache projects.
> >
> > Phrasing it as "we do not pay for code" is a shorthand, but does not, in
> > fact, "define" the tenet. Saying that such things as paying contractors
> for
> > self-service Infra code is some sort of "exception" to that tenet, has
> been
> > debunked my several people, as has been explained by numerous people
> > including Greg, our head of Infra, previous director and previous
> Chairman.
> > A logical outcome (effect) of that policy is that we are vendor neutral,
> > but that is not the source of that tenet, but rather an extension of
> > behaviors based on that tenet (we also have a duty to be vendor neutral
> as
> > well, due to our 501(c)3 status, but that is a related but different
> point).
> >
> > Previous threads have made that distinction and clarification clear, and
> > it has been confirmed by numerous people who have been officers,
> founders,
> > directors, etc.
> >
> > I would ask that those continuing to spread this misinformation, or
> > mischaracterization of the actual facts, please stop doing so. Framing
> the
> > argument as "we do not pay for code, (when we obviously do)" and "the
> core
> > reason for this is neutrality" is incorrect and disingenuous and somewhat
> > self-serving. It significantly harms the validity of their other
> arguments
> > and points of view which have value and useful insight, and requires
> wasted
> > time and energy for those who need to repeatedly set the facts and the
> > record straight.
> >
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
based on the statements in your email, I will accept that "but we *do* pay
for some code so can't we make another exception!" and "we can make an
exception because we can maintain our neutrality in other ways" are invalid
arguments. you have made it clear that both of those things are irrelevant,
and I will take you at your word
which brings me back to the only question I've had regarding this topic
since the start of this discussion: why should we continue to abide by this
principle? what value does it provide?
the answer can't be anything to do with neutrality. you ruled that out
yourself. either neutrality is a side-effect of the principal or a
justification for the principal. but it can't be both
it sounds to me as if you're arguing that because this is a "founding
principle" it does not need any further justification. but when I expressed
this on the list before, you ridiculed me
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0e43e2b29e05443e352195d531306b4d68ada00a18fc677c8f6390f7@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
so what's left? I mean, what are people really fighting for here besides
"that's what we've always done so that's what we must always do". this
isn't a facetious question. I am genuinely perplexed. so many genuinely
very intelligent people want to use to continue to abide by this principle
and the best explanation I can come up with is that this resistance to
change for the sake of caution
being cautious, conservative with one's actions, etc, has its place. I
understand that. but if this is what people are concerned about, I wish
they'd just say it. it's a lot easier to have a productive discussion if
everybody's rationales are made clear
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 17:41, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/06/30 11:01:54, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > We have a strong tradition here of independence and being vendor
> > neutral. We don't pick winners and losers. "We don't pay for code"
> > is a useful approximation of those values. It has plenty of
> > exceptions, just like the ones that described in the link above.
> >
>
> Actually, the principle is that we, the foundation, do not pay for
> development for Apache projects.
>
> Phrasing it as "we do not pay for code" is a shorthand, but does not, in
> fact, "define" the tenet. Saying that such things as paying contractors for
> self-service Infra code is some sort of "exception" to that tenet, has been
> debunked my several people, as has been explained by numerous people
> including Greg, our head of Infra, previous director and previous Chairman.
> A logical outcome (effect) of that policy is that we are vendor neutral,
> but that is not the source of that tenet, but rather an extension of
> behaviors based on that tenet (we also have a duty to be vendor neutral as
> well, due to our 501(c)3 status, but that is a related but different point).
>
> Previous threads have made that distinction and clarification clear, and
> it has been confirmed by numerous people who have been officers, founders,
> directors, etc.
>
> I would ask that those continuing to spread this misinformation, or
> mischaracterization of the actual facts, please stop doing so. Framing the
> argument as "we do not pay for code, (when we obviously do)" and "the core
> reason for this is neutrality" is incorrect and disingenuous and somewhat
> self-serving. It significantly harms the validity of their other arguments
> and points of view which have value and useful insight, and requires wasted
> time and energy for those who need to repeatedly set the facts and the
> record straight.
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On 2019/06/30 11:01:54, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> We have a strong tradition here of independence and being vendor
> neutral. We don't pick winners and losers. "We don't pay for code"
> is a useful approximation of those values. It has plenty of
> exceptions, just like the ones that described in the link above.
>
Actually, the principle is that we, the foundation, do not pay for development for Apache projects.
Phrasing it as "we do not pay for code" is a shorthand, but does not, in fact, "define" the tenet. Saying that such things as paying contractors for self-service Infra code is some sort of "exception" to that tenet, has been debunked my several people, as has been explained by numerous people including Greg, our head of Infra, previous director and previous Chairman. A logical outcome (effect) of that policy is that we are vendor neutral, but that is not the source of that tenet, but rather an extension of behaviors based on that tenet (we also have a duty to be vendor neutral as well, due to our 501(c)3 status, but that is a related but different point).
Previous threads have made that distinction and clarification clear, and it has been confirmed by numerous people who have been officers, founders, directors, etc.
I would ask that those continuing to spread this misinformation, or mischaracterization of the actual facts, please stop doing so. Framing the argument as "we do not pay for code, (when we obviously do)" and "the core reason for this is neutrality" is incorrect and disingenuous and somewhat self-serving. It significantly harms the validity of their other arguments and points of view which have value and useful insight, and requires wasted time and energy for those who need to repeatedly set the facts and the record straight.
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 2:59 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Wow! I've spent all of this time reading all of these emails and came away with a completely different idea of what is going on.
>
> It sounds like there is one entity who is willing to cut a check to Outreachy for 3 interns. Does anybody have an objection to having that entity cut that check to Outreachy? Or the way the entity was convinced to agree to cut said check?
>
> Maybe we can focus just on these two questions and arrive at general consensus so we can get on to the next hard problem which is finding enough ASF projects with viable mentors who can complete the application process for Outreachy in time for the next round.
>
> IMO, every other concern/worry can wait until after we get general consensus on having that entity cut a check.
>
> What do others think? I have no objections. I think I've read plenty of emails where various ASF members/officers/directors guide other entities on how to use that entity's money to help individual projects. We have an entity that will not pass money through the ASF and will hopefully result in 3 interns making tangible contributions to 3 projects. I work for a different entity that does not pass money through the ASF and results in me making tangible contributions to 2 projects.
Thanks! As the one most exposed by this, I don't want to leave any
stone unturned that will later bite me.
More background: years ago, Cliff Schmidt created the "category A, B,
and X" scheme that guides Legal Affairs today. He couldn't get
consensus, and left to support the cause of literacy in Africa. I took
over and got yelled at. A lot. After a while, I wrote:
http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html
We have a strong tradition here of independence and being vendor
neutral. We don't pick winners and losers. "We don't pay for code"
is a useful approximation of those values. It has plenty of
exceptions, just like the ones that described in the link above.
There are some here who are saying that perhaps if we meet the letter
of the law but not the spirit by we can abide by the "we don't pay for
code" approximation by not actually touching the funds ourselves,
despite the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending
of the funds from the beginning to the end. If that lets people sleep
better at night, I'm OK with it.
But I don't want to hide in any way what we are doing here.
> HTH,
> -Alex
- Sam Ruby
P.S. Once the check is cut, we have up to two years to find projects
and mentors. From Outreachy's FAQ:
Q: If I sponsor a specific FOSS community and that community doesn't
find an intern, what happens?
A: Sometimes FOSS communities don't have enough applicants, or their
best applicant accepts another opportunity. Outreachy will try to
encourage applicants towards communities that do not have enough
applicants but we cannot guarantee that a community will find a
suitable intern. We will use our best efforts to work with the sponsor
and use the funds for that particular community or another that the
sponsor prefers for two years, after which we'll use them for any
Outreachy activity.
https://www.outreachy.org/sponsor/
> On 6/29/19, 12:49 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2019/06/29 19:24:09, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > I understand the differences of opinion. What I don't understand is why one position or the other has to be proven "right" before we can start actually working with interns.
> >
>
> One is controversial; the other is not. If the true goal was in starting this effort, quickly, the obvious, logical selected method would be to use the uncontroversial method, would it not?
>
> In other words, with the uncontroversial method, things could be started NOW. The controversial method is assured to result in continued (justified, IMO) discussion and debate, resulting in delaying this effort. Even just considering that, and nothing else, the insistence on the paying direct/pass-thru option seems diametrically opposed to the idea that doing this quickly is important.
>
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Wow! I've spent all of this time reading all of these emails and came away with a completely different idea of what is going on.
It sounds like there is one entity who is willing to cut a check to Outreachy for 3 interns. Does anybody have an objection to having that entity cut that check to Outreachy? Or the way the entity was convinced to agree to cut said check?
Maybe we can focus just on these two questions and arrive at general consensus so we can get on to the next hard problem which is finding enough ASF projects with viable mentors who can complete the application process for Outreachy in time for the next round.
IMO, every other concern/worry can wait until after we get general consensus on having that entity cut a check.
What do others think? I have no objections. I think I've read plenty of emails where various ASF members/officers/directors guide other entities on how to use that entity's money to help individual projects. We have an entity that will not pass money through the ASF and will hopefully result in 3 interns making tangible contributions to 3 projects. I work for a different entity that does not pass money through the ASF and results in me making tangible contributions to 2 projects.
HTH,
-Alex
On 6/29/19, 12:49 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
On 2019/06/29 19:24:09, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> I understand the differences of opinion. What I don't understand is why one position or the other has to be proven "right" before we can start actually working with interns.
>
One is controversial; the other is not. If the true goal was in starting this effort, quickly, the obvious, logical selected method would be to use the uncontroversial method, would it not?
In other words, with the uncontroversial method, things could be started NOW. The controversial method is assured to result in continued (justified, IMO) discussion and debate, resulting in delaying this effort. Even just considering that, and nothing else, the insistence on the paying direct/pass-thru option seems diametrically opposed to the idea that doing this quickly is important.
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On 2019/06/29 19:24:09, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> I understand the differences of opinion. What I don't understand is why one position or the other has to be proven "right" before we can start actually working with interns.
>
One is controversial; the other is not. If the true goal was in starting this effort, quickly, the obvious, logical selected method would be to use the uncontroversial method, would it not?
In other words, with the uncontroversial method, things could be started NOW. The controversial method is assured to result in continued (justified, IMO) discussion and debate, resulting in delaying this effort. Even just considering that, and nothing else, the insistence on the paying direct/pass-thru option seems diametrically opposed to the idea that doing this quickly is important.
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
Frankly I don't care, in the short term, about how the money flows. I care about whether we can connect good mentors to good interns.
I'm with Alex : "I don't understand why we are still having these long discussions."
I understand the differences of opinion. What I don't understand is why one position or the other has to be proven "right" before we can start actually working with interns.
Doing the work will help us understand ourselves better. That's the first step we must take.
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
From: Sam Ruby
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:47 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Can I get a summary of all of these Outreachy threads? I'm not on private@diversity and I think I've read every email on this list, but I'm seeing numbers like $10.5K being discussed and I have no clue where that number came from. I'm on fundraising@ as well and still don't recall any source for those numbers. Also, I thought that there was more than one entity that was willing to donate directly to Outreachy and there was only one or two ASF sponsors who were unable to redirect their money directly to Outreachy, so I don't understand why we are still having these long discussions.
I shared this on fundraising, and I shared it on private@diversity.
Not knowing how it would be received, I avoided sharing it publicly.
It is with some trepidation that I do so now.
Sunday (a week ago tomorrow) as I went to bed I had an idea. On
Monday morning, I asked my management if they would consider
sponsoring Outreachy directly, and specify that those funds are to be
be used for ASF projects (Outreachy supports this as an option). By
Tuesday afternoon, I had full and final approval for IBM to pay
$19,500 to fund the next round of interns, for which the applications
open in September and the interns themselves start in December.
You can look at that as the ASF President went to an existing ASF
sponsor and asked them to fund Outreachy interns who will be doing
development.
You can look at that as an IBM employee went to his employer and them
to fund Outreachy interns who will be doing development.
Both of the above statements are accurate.
The check hasn't been cut, so I can stop it. The approval, and a
number of purely procedural steps are all I need to complete to make
it happen. So, I would like to ask both this committee and the board
if this should continue.
I also want to be clear: I did not talk to anybody else at the ASF to
make this happen. The first anybody at the ASF heard about this was
on Monday when I shared with fundraising that IBM was interested and
on Tuesday when I shared with private@diversity that the funds were
approved.
Much of this discussion has been about finding creative ways to
convince ourselves that this program is not /really/ about out paying
for development when in fact development will occur and money will be
paid, and we will be involved in the directing and orchestration of
the process from the beginning to the end.
My concern is even if we do this, we don't know whether we should
continue. I think having sponsors giving us untargeted donations and
us deciding at what levels we wish to be involved and whether or not
we should continue would be a much better approach than having 30
individuals go off (like I did) and fund one to eight interns each
(these are the published sponsorship levels that Outreachy offers).
- Sam Ruby
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 6/29/2019 11:57 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> I think having sponsors giving us untargeted donations and
> us deciding at what levels we wish to be involved and whether or not
> we should continue would be a much better approach than having 30
> individuals go off (like I did) and fund one to eight interns each
> (these are the published sponsorship levels that Outreachy offers).
Thanks or the very good synopsis, for looping in fundraising and for
working to get the donation.
I fail to see how the decision to allow the ASF to send funds to
Outreachy will be anything but a board decision. I view it as paying
for code which is a long standing no-no. It's a waste of time for this
committee to debate that concern and frankly misleading to the committee
that it will be overturned lightly.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:47 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Can I get a summary of all of these Outreachy threads? I'm not on private@diversity and I think I've read every email on this list, but I'm seeing numbers like $10.5K being discussed and I have no clue where that number came from. I'm on fundraising@ as well and still don't recall any source for those numbers. Also, I thought that there was more than one entity that was willing to donate directly to Outreachy and there was only one or two ASF sponsors who were unable to redirect their money directly to Outreachy, so I don't understand why we are still having these long discussions.
I shared this on fundraising, and I shared it on private@diversity.
Not knowing how it would be received, I avoided sharing it publicly.
It is with some trepidation that I do so now.
Sunday (a week ago tomorrow) as I went to bed I had an idea. On
Monday morning, I asked my management if they would consider
sponsoring Outreachy directly, and specify that those funds are to be
be used for ASF projects (Outreachy supports this as an option). By
Tuesday afternoon, I had full and final approval for IBM to pay
$19,500 to fund the next round of interns, for which the applications
open in September and the interns themselves start in December.
You can look at that as the ASF President went to an existing ASF
sponsor and asked them to fund Outreachy interns who will be doing
development.
You can look at that as an IBM employee went to his employer and them
to fund Outreachy interns who will be doing development.
Both of the above statements are accurate.
The check hasn't been cut, so I can stop it. The approval, and a
number of purely procedural steps are all I need to complete to make
it happen. So, I would like to ask both this committee and the board
if this should continue.
I also want to be clear: I did not talk to anybody else at the ASF to
make this happen. The first anybody at the ASF heard about this was
on Monday when I shared with fundraising that IBM was interested and
on Tuesday when I shared with private@diversity that the funds were
approved.
Much of this discussion has been about finding creative ways to
convince ourselves that this program is not /really/ about out paying
for development when in fact development will occur and money will be
paid, and we will be involved in the directing and orchestration of
the process from the beginning to the end.
My concern is even if we do this, we don't know whether we should
continue. I think having sponsors giving us untargeted donations and
us deciding at what levels we wish to be involved and whether or not
we should continue would be a much better approach than having 30
individuals go off (like I did) and fund one to eight interns each
(these are the published sponsorship levels that Outreachy offers).
- Sam Ruby
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are
paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:47 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Can I get a summary of all of these Outreachy threads? I'm not on
> private@diversity and I think I've read every email on this list, but I'm
> seeing numbers like $10.5K being discussed and I have no clue where that
> number came from. I'm on fundraising@ as well and still don't recall any
> source for those numbers. Also, I thought that there was more than one
> entity that was willing to donate directly to Outreachy and there was only
> one or two ASF sponsors who were unable to redirect their money directly to
> Outreachy, so I don't understand why we are still having these long
> discussions.
>
> I thought that if some entity was to donate money directly to Outreachy
> that there were no objections from anybody even if it benefited one or a
> few ASF projects and not others. I would hope that would be the
> recommended workflow.
>
> If it turns out there are some entities that are ok with the money they
> donated to the ASF going to Outreachy but for some reason can't directly
> donate to Outreachy, I would hope that we would make it clear that this
> workflow is not our recommended workflow but we would redirect some of
> their money to Outreachy and either let Outreachy pick which ASF project
> gets an intern, or can we document somewhere that this money was donated
> "on behalf of Entity X".
>
> And then, IMO, the ASF is not paying for code. Can we all agree to that
> and get going on Outreachy?
>
> It was interesting to see it pointed out that there is a financial barrier
> to entry at the ASF. It would be nice if the ASF could find a way to help
> lower that barrier without "paying for code", but maybe we should put that
> in its own thread and spend more time brainstorming on that while we get
> going on Outreachy. IMO, the ASF has other barriers as well. Every ASF
> project I've looked at is huge compared to many of the projects I've seen
> on Github, so the learning curve may be tilted against inexperienced
> programmers and they may need a more expensive computer to build the source
> without it affecting the interns productivity. But even then, the
> entities donating directly to Outreachy could fund that more expensive
> computer. The ASF should not feel obligated to take on smaller projects
> just to make Outreachy interns more successful. Contributing code to the
> ASF is more like becoming a commercial truck driver, contributing to GitHub
> is more like becoming a ride-share driver.
>
> One thought on the financial barrier before I forget: the ASF offers VMs
> to projects. Could they offer laptops as well?
>
My experience as a contributor from an under represented group is that, the
intern does whatever it takes to get selected for Outreachy or GSoC.
This might mean begging or taking out a loan to buy a more powerful
computer and then later paying back the money when you get selected. It
will be great to have new contributors have powerful computers but that may
never happen.
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
>
>
Re: Outreachy sponsorship levels
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
The origin of the 10.5k number was the 30k initial budget request number
for outreach minus the 19.5k put up by another sponser.
I agree it is not a multiple of 6.5k. I pointed out a few times that issue
as well when we were asking for 5 interns for 30k that it was 2.5k short.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 10:22 Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:
> I'm not sure where the $10.5k number came from. Sponsorship for one
> Outreachy intern is $6,500, and that number is not a multiple of that. You
> can see our sponsorship levels on this page:
>
> https://www.outreachy.org/sponsor/
>
> Sage Sharp
> Outreachy Organizer
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 7:47 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Can I get a summary of all of these Outreachy threads? I'm not on
> > private@diversity and I think I've read every email on this list, but
> I'm
> > seeing numbers like $10.5K being discussed and I have no clue where that
> > number came from. I'm on fundraising@ as well and still don't recall
> any
> > source for those numbers. Also, I thought that there was more than one
> > entity that was willing to donate directly to Outreachy and there was
> only
> > one or two ASF sponsors who were unable to redirect their money directly
> to
> > Outreachy, so I don't understand why we are still having these long
> > discussions.
> >
> > I thought that if some entity was to donate money directly to Outreachy
> > that there were no objections from anybody even if it benefited one or a
> > few ASF projects and not others. I would hope that would be the
> > recommended workflow.
> >
> > If it turns out there are some entities that are ok with the money they
> > donated to the ASF going to Outreachy but for some reason can't directly
> > donate to Outreachy, I would hope that we would make it clear that this
> > workflow is not our recommended workflow but we would redirect some of
> > their money to Outreachy and either let Outreachy pick which ASF project
> > gets an intern, or can we document somewhere that this money was donated
> > "on behalf of Entity X".
> >
> > And then, IMO, the ASF is not paying for code. Can we all agree to that
> > and get going on Outreachy?
> >
> > It was interesting to see it pointed out that there is a financial
> barrier
> > to entry at the ASF. It would be nice if the ASF could find a way to
> help
> > lower that barrier without "paying for code", but maybe we should put
> that
> > in its own thread and spend more time brainstorming on that while we get
> > going on Outreachy. IMO, the ASF has other barriers as well. Every ASF
> > project I've looked at is huge compared to many of the projects I've seen
> > on Github, so the learning curve may be tilted against inexperienced
> > programmers and they may need a more expensive computer to build the
> source
> > without it affecting the interns productivity. But even then, the
> > entities donating directly to Outreachy could fund that more expensive
> > computer. The ASF should not feel obligated to take on smaller projects
> > just to make Outreachy interns more successful. Contributing code to
> the
> > ASF is more like becoming a commercial truck driver, contributing to
> GitHub
> > is more like becoming a ride-share driver.
> >
> > One thought on the financial barrier before I forget: the ASF offers VMs
> > to projects. Could they offer laptops as well?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Outreachy sponsorship levels
Posted by Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology>.
I'm not sure where the $10.5k number came from. Sponsorship for one
Outreachy intern is $6,500, and that number is not a multiple of that. You
can see our sponsorship levels on this page:
https://www.outreachy.org/sponsor/
Sage Sharp
Outreachy Organizer
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 7:47 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Can I get a summary of all of these Outreachy threads? I'm not on
> private@diversity and I think I've read every email on this list, but I'm
> seeing numbers like $10.5K being discussed and I have no clue where that
> number came from. I'm on fundraising@ as well and still don't recall any
> source for those numbers. Also, I thought that there was more than one
> entity that was willing to donate directly to Outreachy and there was only
> one or two ASF sponsors who were unable to redirect their money directly to
> Outreachy, so I don't understand why we are still having these long
> discussions.
>
> I thought that if some entity was to donate money directly to Outreachy
> that there were no objections from anybody even if it benefited one or a
> few ASF projects and not others. I would hope that would be the
> recommended workflow.
>
> If it turns out there are some entities that are ok with the money they
> donated to the ASF going to Outreachy but for some reason can't directly
> donate to Outreachy, I would hope that we would make it clear that this
> workflow is not our recommended workflow but we would redirect some of
> their money to Outreachy and either let Outreachy pick which ASF project
> gets an intern, or can we document somewhere that this money was donated
> "on behalf of Entity X".
>
> And then, IMO, the ASF is not paying for code. Can we all agree to that
> and get going on Outreachy?
>
> It was interesting to see it pointed out that there is a financial barrier
> to entry at the ASF. It would be nice if the ASF could find a way to help
> lower that barrier without "paying for code", but maybe we should put that
> in its own thread and spend more time brainstorming on that while we get
> going on Outreachy. IMO, the ASF has other barriers as well. Every ASF
> project I've looked at is huge compared to many of the projects I've seen
> on Github, so the learning curve may be tilted against inexperienced
> programmers and they may need a more expensive computer to build the source
> without it affecting the interns productivity. But even then, the
> entities donating directly to Outreachy could fund that more expensive
> computer. The ASF should not feel obligated to take on smaller projects
> just to make Outreachy interns more successful. Contributing code to the
> ASF is more like becoming a commercial truck driver, contributing to GitHub
> is more like becoming a ride-share driver.
>
> One thought on the financial barrier before I forget: the ASF offers VMs
> to projects. Could they offer laptops as well?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
>
>
Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On 2019/06/29 14:47:05, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> If it turns out there are some entities that are ok with the money they donated to the ASF going to Outreachy but for some reason can't directly donate to Outreachy, I would hope that we would make it clear that this workflow is not our recommended workflow but we would redirect some of their money to Outreachy and either let Outreachy pick which ASF project gets an intern, or can we document somewhere that this money was donated "on behalf of Entity X".
>
IMO, for the above, our response should be “Sorry, but we cannot accept targeted funds for Outreachy because that violates Apache’s policy of not paying for project development”.
We sometimes just need to recall that “thanks, but no thanks” is a perfectly acceptable response.