Do you think there are any situations in which the main barrier to
someone joining an open source project is a purchasable resource other
than travel to conferences?
On 6/21/2019 12:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
