You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> on 2019/06/18 19:20:00 UTC
Outreachy thread part 3 of 3 - interest
We've had a number of discussions on a number of lists. This email is
part one of three of my attempts to untangle the discussions.
Early indications are that the committee is interested in proposing a
pilot Outreachy program (disagree? comment on this thread: [1]), and
that the board will require that the initial pilot be limited to
projects that support the ASF's mission and are not competitive products
in their own right. So things like Gump and Whimsy and Infrastructure
and ComDev and Labs and perhaps Incubator. (disagree? comment on this
thread [2]). Another potential constraint is to limit the budget
approval to the amount of targeted donations received.
Does the committee view those constraints as workable? And if so, does
the committee have ideas on projects.
One project proposed in whimsy incubator support for developing and
reviewing incubator reports (modeled loosely as an open to all
committers version of the board agenda tool). Does the committee view
this as a reasonable project given the constraints described above?
Are there other proposals?
The scope of this thread is limited to presuming that there is interest
in an Outreachy pilot and that the eventual board constraints are as
described above. Everything else is out of scope for this thread, and
should be pursued in a separate thread.
- Sam Ruby
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
[2]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2b1a92dbbd6b59b430dfd071907d8dc942d5bab6ebb4b318c43a1a5e@%3Cboard.apache.org%3E
Re: Outreachy thread part 3 of 3 - interest
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
This was sent out with an incorrect subject line. Please don't
respond to this thread, instead respond to the following one:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b799e65da3b3973ca0f8f6fdef59553630347584845c433f5797e7ca@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
- Sam Ruby
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> We've had a number of discussions on a number of lists. This email is
> part one of three of my attempts to untangle the discussions.
>
> Early indications are that the committee is interested in proposing a
> pilot Outreachy program (disagree? comment on this thread: [1]), and
> that the board will require that the initial pilot be limited to
> projects that support the ASF's mission and are not competitive products
> in their own right. So things like Gump and Whimsy and Infrastructure
> and ComDev and Labs and perhaps Incubator. (disagree? comment on this
> thread [2]). Another potential constraint is to limit the budget
> approval to the amount of targeted donations received.
>
> Does the committee view those constraints as workable? And if so, does
> the committee have ideas on projects.
>
> One project proposed in whimsy incubator support for developing and
> reviewing incubator reports (modeled loosely as an open to all
> committers version of the board agenda tool). Does the committee view
> this as a reasonable project given the constraints described above?
>
> Are there other proposals?
>
> The scope of this thread is limited to presuming that there is interest
> in an Outreachy pilot and that the eventual board constraints are as
> described above. Everything else is out of scope for this thread, and
> should be pursued in a separate thread.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
>
> [2]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2b1a92dbbd6b59b430dfd071907d8dc942d5bab6ebb4b318c43a1a5e@%3Cboard.apache.org%3E
Re: Outreachy thread part 3 of 3 - projects
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:12 PM David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:25 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > Resending with the correct subject line. Please respond to this
> > thread, not the previous one.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > We've had a number of discussions on a number of lists. This email is
> > > part one of three of my attempts to untangle the discussions.
> > >
> > > Early indications are that the committee is interested in proposing a
> > > pilot Outreachy program (disagree? comment on this thread: [1]), and
> > > that the board will require that the initial pilot be limited to
> > > projects that support the ASF's mission and are not competitive products
> > > in their own right. So things like Gump and Whimsy and Infrastructure
> > > and ComDev and Labs and perhaps Incubator. (disagree? comment on this
> > > thread [2]). Another potential constraint is to limit the budget
> > > approval to the amount of targeted donations received.
> > >
> > > Does the committee view those constraints as workable? And if so, does
> > > the committee have ideas on projects.
> > >
> > > One project proposed in whimsy incubator support for developing and
> > > reviewing incubator reports (modeled loosely as an open to all
> > > committers version of the board agenda tool). Does the committee view
> > > this as a reasonable project given the constraints described above?
> > >
> > > Are there other proposals?
> > >
>
> People are free to ignore what I have to say, particularly since I'm
> unlikely to be doing the work.
>
> I think that starting with projects is making an assumption that we
> aren't quite ready to make. I'd argue that our primary constraint
> today isn't money, approval, interns, or projects, but mentors; and
> that encouraging potential mentors to stand up we can then identify
> potential projects. Yes, there may be artificial constraints whereby
> we say that Whimsy is an appropriate project while Tomcat isn't, and
> that's fine, but without a suitable mentor, Whimsy isn't feasible
> either.
We have a number of chicken and egg problems that need to be resolved
here. But to make things simple: if the board approves this and I
can't find any other mentor, I would be interested subject to my being
able to shuffle some of my workload around. I've expressed my
preference for Shane and/or Matt to take this on (Shane has a fair
amount of experience with the whimsy codebase has indicated that he is
interested in mentoring new ASF women members so perhaps it is not a
huge stretch to being open to mentoring new women committers? Matt
has experience with outreachy and interest in the whimsy code base).
If either of them take this on, I would be glad to support them.
I suspect that it is premature to ask either of them to make a
commitment as it is entirely unclear what (if anything) the board will
accept in this area.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Outreachy thread part 3 of 3 - projects
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:25 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> Resending with the correct subject line. Please respond to this
> thread, not the previous one.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > We've had a number of discussions on a number of lists. This email is
> > part one of three of my attempts to untangle the discussions.
> >
> > Early indications are that the committee is interested in proposing a
> > pilot Outreachy program (disagree? comment on this thread: [1]), and
> > that the board will require that the initial pilot be limited to
> > projects that support the ASF's mission and are not competitive products
> > in their own right. So things like Gump and Whimsy and Infrastructure
> > and ComDev and Labs and perhaps Incubator. (disagree? comment on this
> > thread [2]). Another potential constraint is to limit the budget
> > approval to the amount of targeted donations received.
> >
> > Does the committee view those constraints as workable? And if so, does
> > the committee have ideas on projects.
> >
> > One project proposed in whimsy incubator support for developing and
> > reviewing incubator reports (modeled loosely as an open to all
> > committers version of the board agenda tool). Does the committee view
> > this as a reasonable project given the constraints described above?
> >
> > Are there other proposals?
> >
People are free to ignore what I have to say, particularly since I'm
unlikely to be doing the work.
I think that starting with projects is making an assumption that we
aren't quite ready to make. I'd argue that our primary constraint
today isn't money, approval, interns, or projects, but mentors; and
that encouraging potential mentors to stand up we can then identify
potential projects. Yes, there may be artificial constraints whereby
we say that Whimsy is an appropriate project while Tomcat isn't, and
that's fine, but without a suitable mentor, Whimsy isn't feasible
either.
--David
Re: Outreachy thread part 3 of 3 - projects
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Resending with the correct subject line. Please respond to this
thread, not the previous one.
- Sam Ruby
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> We've had a number of discussions on a number of lists. This email is
> part one of three of my attempts to untangle the discussions.
>
> Early indications are that the committee is interested in proposing a
> pilot Outreachy program (disagree? comment on this thread: [1]), and
> that the board will require that the initial pilot be limited to
> projects that support the ASF's mission and are not competitive products
> in their own right. So things like Gump and Whimsy and Infrastructure
> and ComDev and Labs and perhaps Incubator. (disagree? comment on this
> thread [2]). Another potential constraint is to limit the budget
> approval to the amount of targeted donations received.
>
> Does the committee view those constraints as workable? And if so, does
> the committee have ideas on projects.
>
> One project proposed in whimsy incubator support for developing and
> reviewing incubator reports (modeled loosely as an open to all
> committers version of the board agenda tool). Does the committee view
> this as a reasonable project given the constraints described above?
>
> Are there other proposals?
>
> The scope of this thread is limited to presuming that there is interest
> in an Outreachy pilot and that the eventual board constraints are as
> described above. Everything else is out of scope for this thread, and
> should be pursued in a separate thread.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
>
> [2]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2b1a92dbbd6b59b430dfd071907d8dc942d5bab6ebb4b318c43a1a5e@%3Cboard.apache.org%3E