Whimsy, as one example, is an ASF project. Having entered the hallowed halls it is easier to move to another project. One has seen the processes in action. Is it the "best way" - no. But we don't pay for development so it is a compromise. If you have suggestions about a better way then we are all ears.
Sure, I can (and try to) watch and learn, as well as practice and learn. I do that in every possible environment open to me. I don't limit the opportunities artificially. What one learns from situation A is always different from situation B even if 99.9% of the variables are the same. In this case the variables are very different. The proposal is seeking ways to ensure we are not paying for development. The board has been asked for input, there is the compromise of only focusing on foundation projects. Can you be specific about what part of the proposal is encroaching on this principle? Can you provide a clear and compelling case as to why the ASF should *not* do this? Why is this not the case for GSoC and TAC? I do not see the proposal as "the foundation to defend the core principle that we do not pay for development; a principle held for decades." - if you do have a concrete and verifiable observation that supports this statement I really want to hear it as I am 100% against challenging that principle. I am trusting that the proposal will address any concerns effectively and, if it doesn't, the board will reject it. Please be concrete in your objections so that the committee can be concrete in their response. Ross ________________________________ From: Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Outreachy thread part 0 of 3 - Why and what do we get out of it Thanks... follow ups inline. Please note that I am not being argumentative below. I am seriously asking these questions. On 2019/06/19 14:19:59, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > Doing something with outreachy has a direct impact on being minority people, > safely, into the ASF ecosystem.> > > Not doing it does not do so.> Assuming that this pilot program is for something like Whimsy, how does that help the ASF eco-system itself. Isn't the goal to get people involved in open source programs, and work on the barriers that present people from joining? With a project like Whimsy, which is basically an internal ASF tool, any interaction or lesson's learned about "the community" seem valueless to me. So yeah, I understand WHAT it does, but my question is HOW? Working on Whimsy will provide no help or insight of value (IMO) compared to someone working on subversion, for example, as far as what it is like to work on a "regular" open source project. > > Doing something with outreachy means those of us watching and learning can > watch and learn.> > > Not doing it does not offer this opportunity.> Watch and learn what? Why cannot people "watch and learn" directly, externally w/ Outreachy. Why does the ASF need to be involved? Is via Outreachy the only way? The "best" way? Many of the people on this cmmt work at companies and are heavily involved in D&I. Certainly they are watching and learning there. Is the watching and learning as an Apache D&I cmmt member that significantly different from the watching and learning as a Foo employee? > > 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.> There are also loads of other ways to do that, ways which do not require 'work arounds' for our policy regarding "paying for development". Why does doing something w/ Outreachy outweigh that? How about someone from D&I doing a AMA somewhere? Or a blog post? The assumption is either that doing so via Outreachy is the only way or the best way... and I cannot see how that is the case. > > 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.> Although to some it might be obvious, I would submit that to others, it is not so obvious, especially when it directly impacts a long-held core principle. And if the way around that is to basically have that person work on an internal ASF project, how does that help them understand the larger open source community itself? There are lots of things, IMO, we could do and justify it as outreach, and helping us learn, and impacting minority people; We could, for example, bypass Outreachy totally and hire interns; We could even argue that doing so would be a much better way of accomplishing what we wish. The issue there, as with this, is that it forces us to find ways around a principle. I am confident that there are numerous ways of accomplishing the above 'goals' that do not require us finding some 'loophole' around "we do not pay for development". I'm not saying that the ends doesn't matter, but rather the ends do not justify the means. IMO the D&I cmmt must have a clear and compelling case to make on why this effort is worth 'working around' a principle. Such vague and generic statements such as "we learn" and "we can help" hardly seems sufficient, to me, to justify this. D&I is basically "challenging" the foundation to defend the core principle that we do not pay for development; a principle held for decades. I think D&I could do a better job answering the "challenge" to the assumption that this effort w/ Outreachy makes sense and is 'worth it'. The onus, I think, is on the cmmt to prove and justify the effort; not for others to disprove it.
