Doing something with outreachy has a direct impact on being minority people, safely, into the ASF ecosystem.
Not doing it does not do so. Doing something with outreachy means those of us watching and learning can watch and learn. Not doing it does not offer this opportunity. Doing something with outreachy means we can help some otherwise inaccessible people learn about the ASF and our mission. Not doing it does not offer this opportunity. Personally I think this educational value is obvious stuff and it's part of our mission. I'm guessing the lack of argument about whether it's a good idea or not is because others believe it's a good idea too. What is not obvious is why we wouldn't do it. Perhaps I am missing something that others can see. As is the Apache Way the onus is on those who see issues to raise them so they may be addressed. So what concerns must the committee address that are not already being addressed in the developing proposal? Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:48:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it Thx. Forgot to do that. > On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > Moving board to bcc. Don't mix public and private lists[1]. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fincubator.apache.org%2Fguides%2Fcommitter.html&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C857de30b6c69447c90ee08d6f4bcdb22%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636965489302072443&sdata=9M3iYtPOuBvMj89ZJXbgZHVjExP8%2F2GMWwdNiSvwmWs%3D&reserved=0 > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:25 AM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sure. I just didn't see any thread that focused and was directed at a >> foundational question: Why Outreachy. >> >> All threads just seemed to assume that sponsor/support of Outreachy was >> important/critical/useful and that doing so was just a 'given'; I just >> thought that somewhere there should be some discussion 'proving' (or at >> least providing a basis for) that assumption. Basically, why and what do we >> expect to get out of it. >> >> I think it's a valid question to ask since it has the potential to change >> and alter a lot of things. As such, I'm adding dev@diversity to this thread >> in hopes that people respond. >> >> Cheers. >> >>> On Jun 19, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:08 AM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Is some sort of engagement w/ Outreachy really that critical and crucial >>>> to our success related to D&I? I am still not understanding this perceived >>>> need that somehow we 'need' to figure out some way to sponsor/support >>>> Outreachy; of it being some sort of priority. A lot of energy seems to be >>>> going into this and I'm not sure I grok the actual value to the ASF and >>>> our projects being worth it. >>> >>> Perhaps that should be discussed on dev@diversity? >>> >>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fa02217bcc050fe713d33fe73fa14503c173db92a1e1a6c0b174a338c%40%253Cdev.diversity.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C857de30b6c69447c90ee08d6f4bcdb22%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636965489302072443&sdata=mPqx7LE%2FktJrRMkXARLiY%2FE89xMxKTBrt%2BPR6lQocMM%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> - Sam Ruby >>
