On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:25 PM Sam Ruby <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
