On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:25 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. > Outreachy is a natural outgrowth of GSoC itself, the Gnome project's own initiative with over a decade, and ultimately passing the organizational torch off to the SFC. This article gives lots of insight. http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/GNOME-Women-in-Open-Source-Project Others will reinforce what Outreachy has and can continue to accomplish. > 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. > I am not understanding how other members investing their individual energy into a new initiative translates into your valuation or scorn? I did understand that the ASF strongly values the ideal that individual contributors scratch their own itch. Isn't that a founding/core principal? Doesn't that equally apply to the members, officers and directors of this organization? What do your itches have to do with theirs? My perspective is that leveraging a successful existing program leaves the officers and board members who wish to provide actual mentorship and supervision of internships the cycles to do so, by avoiding the many management and finance burdens of administering such a program. The Software Freedom Conservancy provides the program an organizational framework, leaving projects across the OSS spectrum to benefit from the program without being overburdened by it (much like Google provides through GSoC.) Many contributors are paid by their employers to participate at the ASF, or run businesses or consultancies financially benefiting from ASF involvement themselves. This isn't unusual or undesirable. Many contributors participate for other extrinsic or intrinsic motivations (such as reputation, career or social networking, educating themselves, solving issues for not-for-profit causes, etc etc etc.) The first case, we can hope the software industry continues to make inroads in D&I - the direct impact should be more representative participation, increasing the number of ASF contributors as a whole. And the industry's pipeline of qualified candidates involves not only presenting an attractive opportunity, but for the education pipeline to succeed at their own D&I initiatives in attracting a diverse and capable student body. The second case I suspect is the key goal of [email protected] - to look at these other motivations and create a more welcoming environment. Facilitating the chance for any interested project/individual mentor to work in the Outreachy model just as the ASF does with GSoC, finding external funding to subsidize both models (GSoC subsidized by Google, of course), does not break with the tradition of the ASF not directly funding software development. Of course, the ASF could and should be the direct sponsor of any internship for work on the Foundation's own core infrastructure and administration needs, just as others contractors have been paid in the past. Of course you are free to find the entire idea of GSoC or Outreachy participation without value, or merit, and therefore spend none of your own energies scratching such an itch. So long as others do want to invest their energy and scratch their itches, and the board chooses to engage with Outreachy as it has with GSoC, investing great amounts of energy attacking such efforts for your perception of a lack of value suggests an itch which is misguided at best, overreaching and patriarchal at worst.
