On Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 12:12 Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2019/06/19 15:12:42, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am not understanding how other members investing their individual > energy> > > into a new initiative translates into your valuation or scorn? > > If that was all, then I agree. I would have no reason nor basis to say > anything. > > But that is not it. > > Instead, they are asking to spend ASF funds and bypass/work-around a long > standing tenet. It is much more than just investing 'individual energy'. >
My understanding is that there is a proposal to improve organizational tooling which might use ASF funds to make that happen under the Whimsy project umbrella. This is not a new spend, but already an ASF investment. And I understand that there is a proposal for other sponsors who are interested in sponsoring such Outreachy efforts, perhaps entirely bypassing the ASF books (not that it is strictly necessary being 501(c)3 to 501(c)3 grant making) and this matchmaking would happen similarly to GSoC. Pretend, for example, that I am interested in learning more Kotlin and > investing my individual energy in doing so. No big deal right? Now pretend > in doing so, I want the ASF to pay for someone to train me. At that point, > it becomes much more than me just investing my own individual energy. It is > expecting the ASF to fund my education, my learning, my development, my > knowledge. I would fully expect such a scenario to cause... heartburn. > You missed my point, perhaps. It isn't the mentors and developers of this proposed program who are paid by the ASF or Outreachy, any more than Google pays the mentors for GSoC engagements. But... you certainly have been paid, by multiple employers, to participate at the ASF, and I'm sure you wanted to be paid, and were grateful that you were paid to participate in an organization and projects you care deeply about? The ASF directly pays for those services which the ASF organization consumes, e.g. infrastructure development and administration, bookkeeping accounting and tax professionals, marketing and event execution, etc. The things that keep the ASF ship afloat. A small fraction of that budget is software development. We are talking about a small fraction of a small fraction for this spend, with unpaid mentors bringing the proposal to enhance those ASF operational services with yet unnamed contractors. I hope you see the parallels. > I hope you noted the parallels of a company paying an employee to write code and contribute it, to a company pledging a sponsorship through Outreachy offered to their candidates to accomplish that work. That company could similarly recruit, screen and hire such individuals on a short-term basis, but Outreachy simplifies this and lets them keep their focus on their core business while still making a D&I contribution to the benefit of one or more ASF projects. Whether the contribution is solving some HelpWanted tagged issues, or a problem the company or their customers have encountered, we value incremental progress at our projects. This doesn't violate the tenant that the ASF doesn't pay for code development (except that which is required for its own operations.) The proposal is no different than existing programs like GSoC except that it offers the prospect of contributions by underrepresented minorities rather than by students specifically. And it already is funded by a broad number of sponsors, rather than a single tech company.
