On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:24 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2019/06/19 22:14:32, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.> > > > > Unfortunately, "no different" is not quite correct. It is very different or > else we wouldn't be having this discussion. The GSoC process is quite > different > from what was being proposed which was: > > o Do fundraising and look for a sponsor > o who would provide targeting sponsorship funding > o who would donate those funds to the ASF > o who would then use said funds to sponsor/pay Outreachy > o for someone who would use said Outreachy engagement > o to do development > o for Whimsy
I'll note that the process for items 1 through 3 predated this discussion, and the last item was suggested as one possible use when people asked if there were any concrete plans. Tomorrow, David and I have a meeting with the sponsor. To ask them if they will consider NOT donating to the ASF but instead donate to Outreachy. I still maintain that we do pay for development for items we need run the foundation (and can cite numerous examples). Having the sponsor not give the money to us means that the funds could be applied to efforts that give specific projects a competitive advantage in the marketplace, which I fundamentally believe is the true motivation behind the sentiment that people have incorrectly distilled down to "we don't pay for code development". A statement that I maintain is both incorrect and loses the essence of what we, at the ASF are striving for. - Sam Ruby
