Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>]

splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:

>
> We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the
> membership.  We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020.
> The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one.
>
> My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult
> decision, and is not ready yet to do so.  We however have a path
> forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to
> poll the membership for guidance on the matter.  We can ask those that
> wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that
> can guide the membership in casting their votes.
>

this sounds like a good idea to me

I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we might
not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our experience
is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show

but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the
committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a bit
more experience under our belt

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>]

apologies for the follow-up email. I pressed send too early

Kevin said:

"Sorry but I am -1000.  This is a very bad idea."

that to me is the antithesis of "yes, and..."

I was trying to pull the idea back by putting it into context and setting
some things straight

so, in context, even more strange, that I'm the one you pick on (with words
like "very aggressive", to boot!)

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:00, Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:

> Kevin misunderstood the suggestion. I was correcting him
>
> given the conduct of some people on these lists, Greg, I find it
> interesting you've chosen to chastise *me* for the second time
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 08:50, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For somebody quoting "yes, and...", the response below is very
>> aggressive towards Kevin's opinions. Where is the "yes, and..." in
>> this reply to create an inclusive atmosphere on this mailing list?
>>
>> -g
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:19:07PM +0200, Naomi S wrote:
>> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:01, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > - It sets up the precedence that every hard decision will wait a year
>> > > for a member referendum
>> > >
>> >
>> >  no, it doesn't. I'm saying we might want to wait an additional year
>> > because we, as a committee, have not ourselves decided what we want to
>> do
>> > yet
>> >
>> > - It insults the sitting board that they can't make a tough decision.
>> > >
>> >
>> > not, it doesn't. it would be the board who ultimately rubber stamp the
>> idea
>> > to poll the membership. the D&I committee certainly has no power to
>> enact
>> > such a thing. we would be suggesting this to the board as a possible way
>> > forward, and they can tell us whether they deem it prudent/necessary
>> should
>> > the situation come to pass
>> >
>> > - It infers the need to circumvent a possible negative board decisions
>> > > and instead go to the members to "overrule" them either retro- or
>> > > proactively.
>> > >
>> >
>> > see above
>> >
>> >
>> > > - In the lawyer world there is a quote, never ask a question you don't
>> > > know the answer to.  This is a massive gamble.
>> > >
>> >
>> > what are we gambling? as in, what do we lose? the current situation, it
>> > seems is, we won't fund Outreachy. if we ask and the board or the
>> > membership and there is a decision to maintain the status quo, nothing
>> has
>> > changed and nothing has been lost
>> >
>> > conversely, if we don't ask, we get the same outcome. so we have
>> everything
>> > to gain and nothing to lose
>> >
>> >
>> > > - I predict this particular topic of effectively paying for code will
>> > > create partisan divisions with our members who are likely to
>> vehemently
>> > > disagree/agree
>> > >
>> >
>> > same is true for any tough decision. but that doesn't mean we should
>> avoid
>> > making tough decisions
>>
>

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>]

Kevin misunderstood the suggestion. I was correcting him

given the conduct of some people on these lists, Greg, I find it
interesting you've chosen to chastise *me* for the second time

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 08:50, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For somebody quoting "yes, and...", the response below is very
> aggressive towards Kevin's opinions. Where is the "yes, and..." in
> this reply to create an inclusive atmosphere on this mailing list?
>
> -g
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:19:07PM +0200, Naomi S wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:01, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - It sets up the precedence that every hard decision will wait a year
> > > for a member referendum
> > >
> >
> >  no, it doesn't. I'm saying we might want to wait an additional year
> > because we, as a committee, have not ourselves decided what we want to do
> > yet
> >
> > - It insults the sitting board that they can't make a tough decision.
> > >
> >
> > not, it doesn't. it would be the board who ultimately rubber stamp the
> idea
> > to poll the membership. the D&I committee certainly has no power to enact
> > such a thing. we would be suggesting this to the board as a possible way
> > forward, and they can tell us whether they deem it prudent/necessary
> should
> > the situation come to pass
> >
> > - It infers the need to circumvent a possible negative board decisions
> > > and instead go to the members to "overrule" them either retro- or
> > > proactively.
> > >
> >
> > see above
> >
> >
> > > - In the lawyer world there is a quote, never ask a question you don't
> > > know the answer to.  This is a massive gamble.
> > >
> >
> > what are we gambling? as in, what do we lose? the current situation, it
> > seems is, we won't fund Outreachy. if we ask and the board or the
> > membership and there is a decision to maintain the status quo, nothing
> has
> > changed and nothing has been lost
> >
> > conversely, if we don't ask, we get the same outcome. so we have
> everything
> > to gain and nothing to lose
> >
> >
> > > - I predict this particular topic of effectively paying for code will
> > > create partisan divisions with our members who are likely to vehemently
> > > disagree/agree
> > >
> >
> > same is true for any tough decision. but that doesn't mean we should
> avoid
> > making tough decisions
>

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

For somebody quoting "yes, and...", the response below is very
aggressive towards Kevin's opinions. Where is the "yes, and..." in
this reply to create an inclusive atmosphere on this mailing list?

-g

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:19:07PM +0200, Naomi S wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:01, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > - It sets up the precedence that every hard decision will wait a year
> > for a member referendum
> >
> 
>  no, it doesn't. I'm saying we might want to wait an additional year
> because we, as a committee, have not ourselves decided what we want to do
> yet
> 
> - It insults the sitting board that they can't make a tough decision.
> >
> 
> not, it doesn't. it would be the board who ultimately rubber stamp the idea
> to poll the membership. the D&I committee certainly has no power to enact
> such a thing. we would be suggesting this to the board as a possible way
> forward, and they can tell us whether they deem it prudent/necessary should
> the situation come to pass
> 
> - It infers the need to circumvent a possible negative board decisions
> > and instead go to the members to "overrule" them either retro- or
> > proactively.
> >
> 
> see above
> 
> 
> > - In the lawyer world there is a quote, never ask a question you don't
> > know the answer to.  This is a massive gamble.
> >
> 
> what are we gambling? as in, what do we lose? the current situation, it
> seems is, we won't fund Outreachy. if we ask and the board or the
> membership and there is a decision to maintain the status quo, nothing has
> changed and nothing has been lost
> 
> conversely, if we don't ask, we get the same outcome. so we have everything
> to gain and nothing to lose
> 
> 
> > - I predict this particular topic of effectively paying for code will
> > create partisan divisions with our members who are likely to vehemently
> > disagree/agree
> >
> 
> same is true for any tough decision. but that doesn't mean we should avoid
> making tough decisions

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:01, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> - It sets up the precedence that every hard decision will wait a year
> for a member referendum
>

 no, it doesn't. I'm saying we might want to wait an additional year
because we, as a committee, have not ourselves decided what we want to do
yet

- It insults the sitting board that they can't make a tough decision.
>

not, it doesn't. it would be the board who ultimately rubber stamp the idea
to poll the membership. the D&I committee certainly has no power to enact
such a thing. we would be suggesting this to the board as a possible way
forward, and they can tell us whether they deem it prudent/necessary should
the situation come to pass

- It infers the need to circumvent a possible negative board decisions
> and instead go to the members to "overrule" them either retro- or
> proactively.
>

see above


> - In the lawyer world there is a quote, never ask a question you don't
> know the answer to.  This is a massive gamble.
>

what are we gambling? as in, what do we lose? the current situation, it
seems is, we won't fund Outreachy. if we ask and the board or the
membership and there is a decision to maintain the status quo, nothing has
changed and nothing has been lost

conversely, if we don't ask, we get the same outcome. so we have everything
to gain and nothing to lose


> - I predict this particular topic of effectively paying for code will
> create partisan divisions with our members who are likely to vehemently
> disagree/agree
>

same is true for any tough decision. but that doesn't mean we should avoid
making tough decisions

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

["Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>]

On 7/3/2019 8:26 AM, Naomi S wrote:
> splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic
+1 way too much thread hijacking.  Please follow Naomi's example and
fork the threads.
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the
>> membership.  We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020.
>> The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one.
>>
>> My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult
>> decision, and is not ready yet to do so.  We however have a path
>> forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to
>> poll the membership for guidance on the matter.  We can ask those that
>> wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that
>> can guide the membership in casting their votes.
>>
> this sounds like a good idea to me
>
> I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we might
> not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our experience
> is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show
>
> but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the
> committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a bit
> more experience under our belt
>
Sorry but I am -1000.  This is a very bad idea.  Off the cuff, here are
some of my negatives:

- It sets up the precedence that every hard decision will wait a year
for a member referendum

- It insults the sitting board that they can't make a tough decision.

- It infers the need to circumvent a possible negative board decisions
and instead go to the members to "overrule" them either retro- or
proactively.

- In the lawyer world there is a quote, never ask a question you don't
know the answer to.  This is a massive gamble.

- I predict this particular topic of effectively paying for code will
create partisan divisions with our members who are likely to vehemently
disagree/agree

But that said, I agree this would be a great question to add to the
voluntary board candidate questionnaire for next year.

Regards,

KAM


-- 
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Andrew Musselman <ak...@apache.org>]

To everyone:

Do y'all just wake up and decide "I'm going to spend my free time today
bickering on a public mailing list?"

Does this feel like an inclusive list with these kinds of interaction?

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 04:08 Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 13:03, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I really wish that some people on this cmmt would focus on the mission
> and
> > charter of this effort. This cmmt should work on directly helping those
> > that this cmmt is empowered to help
> >
>
> patches welcome
>

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 13:03, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> I really wish that some people on this cmmt would focus on the mission and
> charter of this effort. This cmmt should work on directly helping those
> that this cmmt is empowered to help
>

patches welcome

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>]

Personally, I think that this is way out of D&I's bally-wick. Why is this a D&I issue? What is this obsession on this policy which affects D&I not-a-whit yet directly impacts every project PMC and this foundation to the core? What do some members of the cmmt feel the need to focus on this singular issue in exclusion to everything else? 

I am sorry you don't like this policy... but some policies exist, and should exist, whether you like them or not. I really wish that some people on this cmmt would focus on the mission and charter of this effort. This cmmt should work on directly helping those that this cmmt is empowered to help, instead of using this cmmt to try to change a policy that bothers them personally (I also wonder *WHY* it bothers them personally).

Why some people have chosen this to be a hill to stake this cmmt's energies and reputation on is beyond me. In a cmmt which is all about Inclusion, this clear desire to create venomous division within the membership, and even this cmmt, is mind boggling. What is the fascination w/ this scorched Earth process? Is this really how this cmmt intends to handle the delicate business of changing hearts and minds? If so, I suggest that they rethink it.

PS: Also recall that it is up to the BOARD on whether or not to bring such a change up for consideration by the members. Of course, you are perfectly w/i your rights as a member to petition that. 

On 2019/07/03 12:26:36, Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote: 
> splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the
> > membership.  We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020.
> > The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one.
> >
> > My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult
> > decision, and is not ready yet to do so.  We however have a path
> > forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to
> > poll the membership for guidance on the matter.  We can ask those that
> > wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that
> > can guide the membership in casting their votes.
> >
> 
> this sounds like a good idea to me
> 
> I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we might
> not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our experience
> is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show
> 
> but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the
> committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a bit
> more experience under our belt
> 

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>]

+1

---

Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.

________________________________
From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 11:23:29 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

I might evn go so far as to suggest that the question be worded something
like "would the members be willing to have ASF support temporary
internships for members of disadvantaged communities. Such interns might
write some code as part of their internship."

The point of the internship really is the experience. Putting that first
and the code second is more accurate and less inflammatory.





On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:23 PM Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:

> I think it would be useful to limit the poll to whether the ASF should pay
> for software in order to support people from under-represented groups or
> make ASF communities more accessible or inclusive. It should not be about
> the larger question of whether the ASF should pay for software at all.
>
> Sage Sharp
> Outreachy Organizer
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:57 PM Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 7/3/2019 5:26 AM, Naomi S wrote:
> > > splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic
> > >
> > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the
> > >> membership.  We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020.
> > >> The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one.
> > >>
> > >> My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult
> > >> decision, and is not ready yet to do so.  We however have a path
> > >> forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to
> > >> poll the membership for guidance on the matter.  We can ask those that
> > >> wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that
> > >> can guide the membership in casting their votes.
> > >>
> > >
> > > this sounds like a good idea to me
> > >
> > > I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we
> > might
> > > not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our
> > experience
> > > is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show
> > >
> > > but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the
> > > committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a
> bit
> > > more experience under our belt
> > >
> >
> > I think there is a big picture question that is suitable for a
> > non-binding member vote:
> >
> > Should not paying for development be considered a tool for the purpose
> > of developing open source software for the public good, with the option
> > for the board to make exceptions, or an axiom with no exceptions or
> > adjustments possible?
> >
> > Assuming it is a tool, not an axiom, so exceptions are possible, I think
> > the board, not the membership, is the proper body for evaluating the
> > detailed merits of a particular case for an exception or adjustment.
> >
> > This approach also removes March as a possible deadline for D&I. If the
> > vote goes for the tool view, D&I could present a case for an exception
> > to any board meeting. If it goes for axiom, D&I will know where they
> > stand, and that exceptions are very unlikely.
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7Cb385eb70255045f622d908d70197609b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636979621991044726&amp;sdata=9AzmhsktiU%2B1VobQxREL%2BWI0uKcvyQnT2JrS%2BpVGZl4%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> >
>

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

I might evn go so far as to suggest that the question be worded something
like "would the members be willing to have ASF support temporary
internships for members of disadvantaged communities. Such interns might
write some code as part of their internship."

The point of the internship really is the experience. Putting that first
and the code second is more accurate and less inflammatory.





On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:23 PM Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology> wrote:

> I think it would be useful to limit the poll to whether the ASF should pay
> for software in order to support people from under-represented groups or
> make ASF communities more accessible or inclusive. It should not be about
> the larger question of whether the ASF should pay for software at all.
>
> Sage Sharp
> Outreachy Organizer
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:57 PM Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 7/3/2019 5:26 AM, Naomi S wrote:
> > > splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic
> > >
> > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the
> > >> membership.  We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020.
> > >> The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one.
> > >>
> > >> My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult
> > >> decision, and is not ready yet to do so.  We however have a path
> > >> forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to
> > >> poll the membership for guidance on the matter.  We can ask those that
> > >> wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that
> > >> can guide the membership in casting their votes.
> > >>
> > >
> > > this sounds like a good idea to me
> > >
> > > I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we
> > might
> > > not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our
> > experience
> > > is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show
> > >
> > > but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the
> > > committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a
> bit
> > > more experience under our belt
> > >
> >
> > I think there is a big picture question that is suitable for a
> > non-binding member vote:
> >
> > Should not paying for development be considered a tool for the purpose
> > of developing open source software for the public good, with the option
> > for the board to make exceptions, or an axiom with no exceptions or
> > adjustments possible?
> >
> > Assuming it is a tool, not an axiom, so exceptions are possible, I think
> > the board, not the membership, is the proper body for evaluating the
> > detailed merits of a particular case for an exception or adjustment.
> >
> > This approach also removes March as a possible deadline for D&I. If the
> > vote goes for the tool view, D&I could present a case for an exception
> > to any board meeting. If it goes for axiom, D&I will know where they
> > stand, and that exceptions are very unlikely.
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
>

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Sage Sharp <sh...@otter.technology>]

I think it would be useful to limit the poll to whether the ASF should pay
for software in order to support people from under-represented groups or
make ASF communities more accessible or inclusive. It should not be about
the larger question of whether the ASF should pay for software at all.

Sage Sharp
Outreachy Organizer

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:57 PM Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 7/3/2019 5:26 AM, Naomi S wrote:
> > splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the
> >> membership.  We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020.
> >> The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one.
> >>
> >> My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult
> >> decision, and is not ready yet to do so.  We however have a path
> >> forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to
> >> poll the membership for guidance on the matter.  We can ask those that
> >> wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that
> >> can guide the membership in casting their votes.
> >>
> >
> > this sounds like a good idea to me
> >
> > I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we
> might
> > not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our
> experience
> > is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show
> >
> > but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the
> > committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a bit
> > more experience under our belt
> >
>
> I think there is a big picture question that is suitable for a
> non-binding member vote:
>
> Should not paying for development be considered a tool for the purpose
> of developing open source software for the public good, with the option
> for the board to make exceptions, or an axiom with no exceptions or
> adjustments possible?
>
> Assuming it is a tool, not an axiom, so exceptions are possible, I think
> the board, not the membership, is the proper body for evaluating the
> detailed merits of a particular case for an exception or adjustment.
>
> This approach also removes March as a possible deadline for D&I. If the
> vote goes for the tool view, D&I could present a case for an exception
> to any board meeting. If it goes for axiom, D&I will know where they
> stand, and that exceptions are very unlikely.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>

Re: Polling members (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program)

[Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>]

On 7/3/2019 5:26 AM, Naomi S wrote:
> splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
>>
>> We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the
>> membership.  We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020.
>> The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one.
>>
>> My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult
>> decision, and is not ready yet to do so.  We however have a path
>> forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to
>> poll the membership for guidance on the matter.  We can ask those that
>> wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that
>> can guide the membership in casting their votes.
>>
> 
> this sounds like a good idea to me
> 
> I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we might
> not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our experience
> is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show
> 
> but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the
> committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a bit
> more experience under our belt
> 

I think there is a big picture question that is suitable for a 
non-binding member vote:

Should not paying for development be considered a tool for the purpose 
of developing open source software for the public good, with the option 
for the board to make exceptions, or an axiom with no exceptions or 
adjustments possible?

Assuming it is a tool, not an axiom, so exceptions are possible, I think 
the board, not the membership, is the proper body for evaluating the 
detailed merits of a particular case for an exception or adjustment.

This approach also removes March as a possible deadline for D&I. If the 
vote goes for the tool view, D&I could present a case for an exception 
to any board meeting. If it goes for axiom, D&I will know where they 
stand, and that exceptions are very unlikely.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com