You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org> on 2019/06/24 14:45:43 UTC
[DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
explaining how this benefits the foundation
here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
- getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics one
intern at a time
our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying to
contribute
- Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
people as they go through that process
from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
primary objective
- mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
for explaining this to me!)
https://devrel.net/developer-experience/an-introduction-to-friction-logging
a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
other research we're planning
the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
people who have not contributed
combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
(i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
- mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
framework that we will develop
- each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
the D&I mentorship framework
- the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
sorts of internships)
- the D&I committee will then:
1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw conclusions
2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
3. publish findings on our website or blog
4. socialize those findings within the foundation
- it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people to
use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
forum for working with the information we publish
hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
concrete
thanks!
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
Thanks everyone. Given I missed the intent of this thread I'll not follow up on the "paying for code" concern. It is being addressed alsewhere and it seems clear the intent is to roll the outcome of that discussion into the final proposal.
Thanks all.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 9:16:56 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Answers inline.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 08:05, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> This is awesome. Thank you.
>
You're welcome, and thanks for the good feedback.
> It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue.
>
We didn't answer this question here indeed, as Naomi mentioned, the purpose
of this thread is to share a more complete vision of the impact we hope
Outreachy interns have in the ASF. The main point of this thread is to
articulate a detailed plan that surfaces the bigger goals we're trying to
achieve.
> I don't think anyone can make a supportable argument against the value to
> the D&I effort, at least I can't think of one. However, in order to be
> accepted as a proposal it is very important that the framework clearly
> addresses the fact that we do not pay for code.
>
Agree.
>
> Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list,
> there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these
> ideas going to be rolled into the proposal?
>
You are right. the most viable solutions so far is to look for funding
directly from a sponsor to Outreachy directly, and with this money we
should create internship dedicated to the ASF. As Naomi described in the
framework, each Apache project interested in getting an intern would need
to apply, and have the understanding that there is a significant commitment
in mentorship, reporting and documenting the experience.
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45:43 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
>
> I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
> shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
> happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
> realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
> explaining how this benefits the foundation
>
> here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
>
>
> - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
> we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics
> one
> intern at a time
>
> our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
> making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
> contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
> experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying
> to
> contribute
>
> - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
> people as they go through that process
>
> from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
> should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
> journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
> primary objective
>
> - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
> back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
> creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
> for explaining this to me!)
>
>
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevrel.net%2Fdeveloper-experience%2Fan-introduction-to-friction-logging&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C9cb590aa023b4cedebac08d6f8bf699d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636969898328983936&sdata=H70sARetIvGzdzL2GSqZu0zuk6Z7ibUt%2FLx01oxaKUQ%3D&reserved=0
>
> a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
> other research we're planning
>
> the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
> will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
> ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
> people who have not contributed
>
> combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
> (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
> foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
>
> now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
>
> - mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
>
>
> 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
> 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
> framework that we will develop
>
>
> - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
> steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
> the D&I mentorship framework
>
> - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
> reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
> D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
> information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
> framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
> sorts of internships)
>
> - the D&I committee will then:
> 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw
> conclusions
> 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
> 3. publish findings on our website or blog
> 4. socialize those findings within the foundation
>
> - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
> decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people
> to
> use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
> forum for working with the information we publish
>
>
> hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
> starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
>
> and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
> concrete
>
> thanks!
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>.
Answers inline.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 08:05, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> This is awesome. Thank you.
>
You're welcome, and thanks for the good feedback.
> It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue.
>
We didn't answer this question here indeed, as Naomi mentioned, the purpose
of this thread is to share a more complete vision of the impact we hope
Outreachy interns have in the ASF. The main point of this thread is to
articulate a detailed plan that surfaces the bigger goals we're trying to
achieve.
> I don't think anyone can make a supportable argument against the value to
> the D&I effort, at least I can't think of one. However, in order to be
> accepted as a proposal it is very important that the framework clearly
> addresses the fact that we do not pay for code.
>
Agree.
>
> Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list,
> there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these
> ideas going to be rolled into the proposal?
>
You are right. the most viable solutions so far is to look for funding
directly from a sponsor to Outreachy directly, and with this money we
should create internship dedicated to the ASF. As Naomi described in the
framework, each Apache project interested in getting an intern would need
to apply, and have the understanding that there is a significant commitment
in mentorship, reporting and documenting the experience.
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45:43 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
>
> I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
> shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
> happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
> realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
> explaining how this benefits the foundation
>
> here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
>
>
> - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
> we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics
> one
> intern at a time
>
> our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
> making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
> contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
> experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying
> to
> contribute
>
> - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
> people as they go through that process
>
> from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
> should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
> journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
> primary objective
>
> - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
> back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
> creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
> for explaining this to me!)
>
>
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevrel.net%2Fdeveloper-experience%2Fan-introduction-to-friction-logging&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C6831e1c67e62480c642f08d6f8b2b503%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636969843752860959&sdata=p0qy7OdAtI82RAY%2BOvj12BjjAOue8NR1DvgDe8%2FLulM%3D&reserved=0
>
> a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
> other research we're planning
>
> the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
> will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
> ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
> people who have not contributed
>
> combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
> (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
> foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
>
> now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
>
> - mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
>
>
> 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
> 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
> framework that we will develop
>
>
> - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
> steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
> the D&I mentorship framework
>
> - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
> reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
> D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
> information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
> framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
> sorts of internships)
>
> - the D&I committee will then:
> 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw
> conclusions
> 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
> 3. publish findings on our website or blog
> 4. socialize those findings within the foundation
>
> - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
> decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people
> to
> use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
> forum for working with the information we publish
>
>
> hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
> starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
>
> and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
> concrete
>
> thanks!
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:05, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> This is awesome. Thank you.
>
thank you!
> It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue.
>
I see the two things as orthogonal issues. my proposal only means to
address the issue of how to make sure we're getting the most out of any
potential engagement with Outreachy. I am sorry I didn't make this clearer
in my first email
I think it's right that the financial side of things continues to be
discussed elsewhere
Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list,
> there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these
> ideas going to be rolled into the proposal?
>
we did, with Sam and Daniel too. that resulted in the following email:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1daf8d767f6be8db825ec96b6902698ed68eec5815a1ac1958aa064f@%3Cfundraising.apache.org%3E
this is beyond my experience, so I am hoping that Gris, Daniel, etc, can
figure something out
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org>.
Hi Myrle,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:09 PM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey Ross,
>
> I think it's clear that we can't "buy" our way out of the diversity
> problem. However, the neutrality argument doesn't seem to apply in any
> situation in which we are "picking winners", whether the money comes from
> us or not. If there are a limited number of interns (Outreach, or GSoC,
> ASoC, etc), and we are deciding which projects those interns work on, then
> we are not neutral. Whether or not the money passes through our accounts
> seems to be a bit of a red herring (unintentional, I'm sure).
>
We could use random selection or balloting if we have more projects
applying for Outreachy from the ASF than we can afford. Off course,
applications will have to be screened before applying balloting.
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:05 PM Ross Gardler
> <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > This is awesome. Thank you.
> >
> > It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue.
> >
> > I don't think anyone can make a supportable argument against the value to
> > the D&I effort, at least I can't think of one. However, in order to be
> > accepted as a proposal it is very important that the framework clearly
> > addresses the fact that we do not pay for code.
> >
> > Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list,
> > there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these
> > ideas going to be rolled into the proposal?
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45:43 AM
> > To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
> >
> > I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner.
> I
> > shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as
> it
> > happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and
> we
> > realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
> > explaining how this benefits the foundation
> >
> > here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
> >
> >
> > - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end
> goal.
> > we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics
> > one
> > intern at a time
> >
> > our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
> > making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
> > contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
> > experiences that people from under-represented groups have while
> trying
> > to
> > contribute
> >
> > - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn
> from
> > people as they go through that process
> >
> > from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
> > should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
> > journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
> > primary objective
> >
> > - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and
> reporting
> > back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
> > creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to
> Gris
> > for explaining this to me!)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevrel.net%2Fdeveloper-experience%2Fan-introduction-to-friction-logging&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C6831e1c67e62480c642f08d6f8b2b503%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636969843752860959&sdata=p0qy7OdAtI82RAY%2BOvj12BjjAOue8NR1DvgDe8%2FLulM%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement
> the
> > other research we're planning
> >
> > the difference here is that the information we gather through
> Outreachy
> > will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to
> the
> > ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on
> surveying
> > people who have not contributed
> >
> > combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
> > (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
> > foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
> >
> > now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the
> program:
> >
> > - mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
> >
> >
> > 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
> > 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
> > framework that we will develop
> >
> >
> > - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
> > steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they
> follow
> > the D&I mentorship framework
> >
> > - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
> > reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of
> the
> > D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
> > information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
> > framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
> > sorts of internships)
> >
> > - the D&I committee will then:
> > 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw
> > conclusions
> > 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
> > 3. publish findings on our website or blog
> > 4. socialize those findings within the foundation
> >
> > - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
> > decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage
> people
> > to
> > use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
> > forum for working with the information we publish
> >
> >
> > hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
> > starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
> >
> > and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
> > concrete
> >
> > thanks!
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:28 AM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid that this isn't how the foundation works. One cannot unilaterally decide that a policy doesn't apply because it doesn't directly have a measurable impact on neutrality.
>
> I agree with the statistical argument. I agree we need to find a way of doing this. But I do not agree we can simply state that the policy does not apply. It does.
>
> The committee could make an argument for an exception to be added to theft policy. I'd advise against that, as if will likely raise concerns about a slippery slope.
>
> It has been suggested that interns be limited to internal projects, but this is countered by the fact that these are not true ASF public projects and thus the educational value is limited.
>
> It has been suggested that we ask spomsors to donate directly to Outreachy. I've not seen anyone argue against this proposal (apologies if I missed something).
>
> Maybe there are other approaches.
>
> This is one of the fundamental differences between the ASF and every other foundation or there. It is at the core of why we are successful. I cannot see the board accepting a proposal that does not directly address this concern.
>
> Personally I believe the simpledt approach is to have sponsors give their money to Outreachy while ASF offers self-nominating volunteer mentors.
>
> However, I see a potential missed opportunity in this. Both the ASF and Outreachy are 501c(3)'s. I believe we can help one another significantly. Let's be inventive. How can we leverage one another to bring more success?
>
> At present the conversation is about simply using Outreachy to help the ASF take on some interns. Can't we be more aggressive than this? What can ASF plus Outreachy do together to raise awareness of the program? What can we do together to share the knowledge gained? What can we do to help those not lucky enough to recurve an internship?
My sense is that many of these discussions come down to focusing on
distinctions without a difference. As an example, an enlightened
sponsor (or group of sponsors) could redirect money that would have
gone to sponsoring the ASF to sponsoring Outreachy and directing that
those funds be used on ASF projects. If there are more mentors than
sponsors are willing to pay, that sponsor could take input from either
the ASF or Outreachy on priorities, or potentially even simply seek
and ratify recommendations from the D&I committee.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:28 PM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> I'm afraid that this isn't how the foundation works. One cannot
> unilaterally decide that a policy doesn't apply because it doesn't directly
> have a measurable impact on neutrality.
>
I'm not proposing that make any unilateral decisions. Which is why I'm
participating in the conversation on fundraising too. This needs to be a
conversation.
> The committee could make an argument for an exception to be added to theft
> policy. I'd advise against that, as if will likely raise concerns about a
> slippery slope.
>
> It has been suggested that interns be limited to internal projects, but
> this is countered by the fact that these are not true ASF public projects
> and thus the educational value is limited.
>
> It has been suggested that we ask spomsors to donate directly to
> Outreachy. I've not seen anyone argue against this proposal (apologies if I
> missed something).
>
I'm not arguing against asking sponsors to skip us and go to Outreachy.
But it doesn't actually solve the neutrality problem. And you are
absolutely right that neutrality is important. The neutrality problem
*needs* to be solved.
Neutrality, or lack of it, comes when we pick the winners. We can lose our
neutrality without ever seeing a dime of the money an Outreachy intern is
paid. We need to do more than just not touch the money to preserve our
neutrality.
>
> Maybe there are other approaches.
>
> This is one of the fundamental differences between the ASF and every other
> foundation or there. It is at the core of why we are successful. I cannot
> see the board accepting a proposal that does not directly address this
> concern.
>
That's what I'm trying to do here. For myself too.
> Personally I believe the simpledt approach is to have sponsors give their
> money to Outreachy while ASF offers self-nominating volunteer mentors.
This only solves the problem if we have less mentors than we have resources
for the Outreachy interns. But in that case we don't have a neutrality
problem anyways.
Best Regards,
Myrle
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
I'm afraid that this isn't how the foundation works. One cannot unilaterally decide that a policy doesn't apply because it doesn't directly have a measurable impact on neutrality.
I agree with the statistical argument. I agree we need to find a way of doing this. But I do not agree we can simply state that the policy does not apply. It does.
The committee could make an argument for an exception to be added to theft policy. I'd advise against that, as if will likely raise concerns about a slippery slope.
It has been suggested that interns be limited to internal projects, but this is countered by the fact that these are not true ASF public projects and thus the educational value is limited.
It has been suggested that we ask spomsors to donate directly to Outreachy. I've not seen anyone argue against this proposal (apologies if I missed something).
Maybe there are other approaches.
This is one of the fundamental differences between the ASF and every other foundation or there. It is at the core of why we are successful. I cannot see the board accepting a proposal that does not directly address this concern.
Personally I believe the simpledt approach is to have sponsors give their money to Outreachy while ASF offers self-nominating volunteer mentors.
However, I see a potential missed opportunity in this. Both the ASF and Outreachy are 501c(3)'s. I believe we can help one another significantly. Let's be inventive. How can we leverage one another to bring more success?
At present the conversation is about simply using Outreachy to help the ASF take on some interns. Can't we be more aggressive than this? What can ASF plus Outreachy do together to raise awareness of the program? What can we do together to share the knowledge gained? What can we do to help those not lucky enough to recurve an internship?
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 8:09:22 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Hey Ross,
I think it's clear that we can't "buy" our way out of the diversity
problem. However, the neutrality argument doesn't seem to apply in any
situation in which we are "picking winners", whether the money comes from
us or not. If there are a limited number of interns (Outreach, or GSoC,
ASoC, etc), and we are deciding which projects those interns work on, then
we are not neutral. Whether or not the money passes through our accounts
seems to be a bit of a red herring (unintentional, I'm sure).
At the same time, interns are temporary. And projects don't just benefit
from them; interns also cost a community considerable time and effort to
bring in. So projects are not incentivized to ask for an unlimited number
of interns. In fact projects accepting interns should be recognized for
their contribution to ASF as a whole; they are giving more than they are
taking. The neutrality argument seems less relevant in this situation for
that reason as well.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:05 PM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> This is awesome. Thank you.
>
> It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue.
>
> I don't think anyone can make a supportable argument against the value to
> the D&I effort, at least I can't think of one. However, in order to be
> accepted as a proposal it is very important that the framework clearly
> addresses the fact that we do not pay for code.
>
> Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list,
> there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these
> ideas going to be rolled into the proposal?
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45:43 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
>
> I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
> shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
> happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
> realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
> explaining how this benefits the foundation
>
> here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
>
>
> - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
> we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics
> one
> intern at a time
>
> our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
> making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
> contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
> experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying
> to
> contribute
>
> - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
> people as they go through that process
>
> from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
> should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
> journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
> primary objective
>
> - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
> back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
> creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
> for explaining this to me!)
>
>
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevrel.net%2Fdeveloper-experience%2Fan-introduction-to-friction-logging&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C85ebdcb5449d4f66ba3a08d6f8b5fa97%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636969857809316318&sdata=RD%2B%2BxuqWAY81zG%2FsbsKdmXchc1CJOHOAaQD94vmlMZQ%3D&reserved=0
>
> a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
> other research we're planning
>
> the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
> will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
> ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
> people who have not contributed
>
> combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
> (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
> foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
>
> now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
>
> - mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
>
>
> 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
> 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
> framework that we will develop
>
>
> - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
> steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
> the D&I mentorship framework
>
> - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
> reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
> D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
> information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
> framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
> sorts of internships)
>
> - the D&I committee will then:
> 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw
> conclusions
> 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
> 3. publish findings on our website or blog
> 4. socialize those findings within the foundation
>
> - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
> decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people
> to
> use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
> forum for working with the information we publish
>
>
> hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
> starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
>
> and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
> concrete
>
> thanks!
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey Ross,
I think it's clear that we can't "buy" our way out of the diversity
problem. However, the neutrality argument doesn't seem to apply in any
situation in which we are "picking winners", whether the money comes from
us or not. If there are a limited number of interns (Outreach, or GSoC,
ASoC, etc), and we are deciding which projects those interns work on, then
we are not neutral. Whether or not the money passes through our accounts
seems to be a bit of a red herring (unintentional, I'm sure).
At the same time, interns are temporary. And projects don't just benefit
from them; interns also cost a community considerable time and effort to
bring in. So projects are not incentivized to ask for an unlimited number
of interns. In fact projects accepting interns should be recognized for
their contribution to ASF as a whole; they are giving more than they are
taking. The neutrality argument seems less relevant in this situation for
that reason as well.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:05 PM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> This is awesome. Thank you.
>
> It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue.
>
> I don't think anyone can make a supportable argument against the value to
> the D&I effort, at least I can't think of one. However, in order to be
> accepted as a proposal it is very important that the framework clearly
> addresses the fact that we do not pay for code.
>
> Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list,
> there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these
> ideas going to be rolled into the proposal?
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45:43 AM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
>
> I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
> shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
> happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
> realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
> explaining how this benefits the foundation
>
> here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
>
>
> - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
> we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics
> one
> intern at a time
>
> our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
> making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
> contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
> experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying
> to
> contribute
>
> - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
> people as they go through that process
>
> from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
> should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
> journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
> primary objective
>
> - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
> back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
> creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
> for explaining this to me!)
>
>
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevrel.net%2Fdeveloper-experience%2Fan-introduction-to-friction-logging&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C6831e1c67e62480c642f08d6f8b2b503%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636969843752860959&sdata=p0qy7OdAtI82RAY%2BOvj12BjjAOue8NR1DvgDe8%2FLulM%3D&reserved=0
>
> a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
> other research we're planning
>
> the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
> will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
> ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
> people who have not contributed
>
> combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
> (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
> foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
>
> now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
>
> - mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
>
>
> 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
> 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
> framework that we will develop
>
>
> - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
> steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
> the D&I mentorship framework
>
> - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
> reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
> D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
> information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
> framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
> sorts of internships)
>
> - the D&I committee will then:
> 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw
> conclusions
> 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
> 3. publish findings on our website or blog
> 4. socialize those findings within the foundation
>
> - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
> decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people
> to
> use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
> forum for working with the information we publish
>
>
> hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
> starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
>
> and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
> concrete
>
> thanks!
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
This is awesome. Thank you.
It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue.
I don't think anyone can make a supportable argument against the value to the D&I effort, at least I can't think of one. However, in order to be accepted as a proposal it is very important that the framework clearly addresses the fact that we do not pay for code.
Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list, there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these ideas going to be rolled into the proposal?
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45:43 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
explaining how this benefits the foundation
here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
- getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics one
intern at a time
our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying to
contribute
- Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
people as they go through that process
from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
primary objective
- mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
for explaining this to me!)
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevrel.net%2Fdeveloper-experience%2Fan-introduction-to-friction-logging&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C6831e1c67e62480c642f08d6f8b2b503%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636969843752860959&sdata=p0qy7OdAtI82RAY%2BOvj12BjjAOue8NR1DvgDe8%2FLulM%3D&reserved=0
a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
other research we're planning
the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
people who have not contributed
combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
(i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
- mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
framework that we will develop
- each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
the D&I mentorship framework
- the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
sorts of internships)
- the D&I committee will then:
1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw conclusions
2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
3. publish findings on our website or blog
4. socialize those findings within the foundation
- it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people to
use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
forum for working with the information we publish
hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
concrete
thanks!
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 09:59, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Sounds like a very productive meal and i’m wondering if a regular
> discussion would be worthwhile rather than just email. Obviously anything
> off list would need to be summarised back to email, but it could be
> productive to have real discussion.
>
yup. I think so
> I would add a third responsibility, which would be engagement with the PMC
> of the project the intern is working on. Keep them informed of how it’s
> going, discuss the friction log (love that idea) with the PMC.
>
good call!
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
Great email Naomi, couple of comments inline.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 15:46, Naomi Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
> shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
> happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
> realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
> explaining how this benefits the foundation
Sounds like a very productive meal and i’m wondering if a regular
discussion would be worthwhile rather than just email. Obviously anything
off list would need to be summarised back to email, but it could be
productive to have real discussion.
>
>
> here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
>
>
> - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
> we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics
> one
> intern at a time
>
> our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
> making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
> contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
> experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying
> to
> contribute
>
> - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
> people as they go through that process
>
> from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
> should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
> journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
> primary objective
>
> - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
> back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
> creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
> for explaining this to me!)
>
>
>
> https://devrel.net/developer-experience/an-introduction-to-friction-logging
>
> a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
> other research we're planning
>
> the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
> will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
> ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
> people who have not contributed
>
> combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
> (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
> foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
>
> now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
>
> - mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
>
>
> 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
> 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
> framework that we will develop
I would add a third responsibility, which would be engagement with the PMC
of the project the intern is working on. Keep them informed of how it’s
going, discuss the friction log (love that idea) with the PMC.
Niall
>
> - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
> steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
> the D&I mentorship framework
>
> - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
> reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
> D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
> information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
> framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
> sorts of internships)
>
> - the D&I committee will then:
> 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw
> conclusions
> 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
> 3. publish findings on our website or blog
> 4. socialize those findings within the foundation
>
> - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
> decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people
> to
> use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
> forum for working with the information we publish
>
>
> hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
> starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
>
> and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
> concrete
>
> thanks!
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Hi Naomi,
Sorry for the top post. This is good work! I'm glad you and Gris have a
framework built around this, and I think it's going in all the right
directions. You have my support!
-Joan
On 2019-06-24 10:45 a.m., Naomi Slater wrote:
> I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I
> shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it
> happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we
> realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of
> explaining how this benefits the foundation
>
> here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing:
>
>
> - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal.
> we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics one
> intern at a time
>
> our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by
> making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to
> contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the
> experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying to
> contribute
>
> - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from
> people as they go through that process
>
> from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship
> should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's
> journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our
> primary objective
>
> - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting
> back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at
> creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris
> for explaining this to me!)
>
>
> https://devrel.net/developer-experience/an-introduction-to-friction-logging
>
> a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the
> other research we're planning
>
> the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy
> will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the
> ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying
> people who have not contributed
>
> combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel"
> (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the
> foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year
>
> now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program:
>
> - mentors will have two primary responsibilities:
>
>
> 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework
> 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship
> framework that we will develop
>
>
> - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that
> steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow
> the D&I mentorship framework
>
> - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of
> reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the
> D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other
> information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this
> framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other
> sorts of internships)
>
> - the D&I committee will then:
> 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw conclusions
> 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions
> 3. publish findings on our website or blog
> 4. socialize those findings within the foundation
>
> - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to
> decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people to
> use discuss@diversity.apache.org (analogous to users@) as a support
> forum for working with the information we publish
>
>
> hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal
> starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have
>
> and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more
> concrete
>
> thanks!
>