No, that argument does not work. If code is produced we are pushing for code, it's not a byproduct, it's the output.
Is be very dismayed if we were truly arguing that we can solve the D&I problem simply by inflating numbers through paid engagements. That's not solving anything, that's hiding it. Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:36:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?) Paying for Outreachy means we are paying for D&I. Code is a byproduct. Given generally the bar at Outreachy is so low. The question now should be: is D&I really important enough for us to pay for? I will say yes. Is paying for D&I a bad thing? On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 02:33 Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > I said "watch and learn" in an earlier thread on this topic. I believe > that means it can be seen as knowledge gathering. At least from my point of > view. > > But then I see everything as knowledge gathering ;-) > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ________________________________ > From: Sam Ruby <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:28:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that > acceptable? (was Re: Why does the ASF not pay for development?) > > Excellent subject line. Permit me to give a different take. But > first, I want to give credit to an off-hand comment made by David and > seeing an early draft of what Gris and Naomi are working on as > inspirations. > > The board approved $70K for D&I for this FY. This is for Survey > Design and Contributor Experience Research. I'll generalize a bit, > and say that the value we receive in return for these investments is > knowledge. (See > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C21ba6bf79de84a51d70d08d6f612e805%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636966958400128323&sdata=I3kQHVv1RfyMcQ7dZFxB3t3R7HwKuWI%2Fb5fcNpSk1q0%3D&reserved=0 > ) > > The board either declined to fund or has not come to consensus on > Outreachy. We went on a number of tangents, relating to Sponsors and > artificially limiting the set of projects that could apply. Neither > achieved consensus, so let's ignore both. > > The question to pose: what if the primary value we seek to receive > from engaging in Outreachy was knowledge? If that were the case, > would it make sense for the ASF to directly fund Outreachy at levels > comparable to what the board agreed to invest in Survey Design and > Contributor Experience Research? What if we were to assume that any > code that an intern would contribute over a handful of months is > incidental? > > The post that Naomi and Gris will be making in the upcoming days > describes the knowledge that we hope to acquire from working with > Outreachy. > > - Sam Ruby >
