IMO, this is the classic "multiple kids" problem. If you have more than one kid, you could pay to send only one kid to a school in a foreign country for a semester. But there is a good chance the other kids will complain of unfair treatment. The one kid that gets to travel will learn the same math/language/whatever they would at home as a byproduct and everyone can gather additional knowledge by observation, but one kid still appeared to get a better deal.
One could argue that exposure to foreign study is so important it is worth the potential problems of unfair treatment as there will be a trickle-down effect where everyone learns, but I don't think that will convince enough people to get approval for funding Outreachy at the ASF. I am hopeful the proposal proposes a way that shows that either: 1) this is a one-time request due to unfortunate circumstances where it will just be easier/better for the ASF to forward some money to Outreachy on behalf of a sponsor, or, 2) the ASF will not select which ASF project gets the Outreachy Intern. Instead, the sponsor and/or Outreachy will and all ASF projects are encouraged to apply to get an intern. I suspect there are also other scenarios that can keep the parents (the ASF) from appearing to favor one child over the others. My 2 cents, -Alex On 6/21/19, 6:37 AM, "Naomi S" <[email protected]> wrote: agreed. my proposal (currently being drafted) goes into detail on this matter. but we don’t want to use Outreachy to inflate our demographics one internship at a time we want to gather and synthesize the knowledge we gain through running an internship program w ppl from under represented groups so that we can publish recommendations that projects across the foundation can use (with support from us on duscuss@diversity) to make their projects more welcoming and safe and inclusive, and ultimately, more attractive to contribute to On Fri 21. Jun 2019 at 15:21, Michael Mior <[email protected]> wrote: > From the peanut gallery > > Le ven. 21 juin 2019 à 03:16, Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > No, that argument does not work. If code is produced we are pushing for > code, it's not a byproduct, it's the output. > > I admittedly have strong tendencies towards pedantry, but one > definition of byproduct is: "an incidental or secondary product made > in the manufacture or synthesis of something else." Correct me if I'm > wrong, but the goal D&I is trying to achieve by engaging Outreachy is > not to produce code, but to provide groups which are currently > represented an opportunity to engage with the ASF. That is done by > collaboratively writing code, but writing code is not the primary > goal. > > > > > 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. > > I don't interpret anyone's comments so far as suggesting that paid > engagements will *directly* improve D&I. As Naomi said in another > thread: > > "as it stands, with open source in general, contributing requires that > you have the resources (computer, knowledge/skills, free time) to do > so. and the temperament to do so" > > I'd be hesitant to call all paid engagements inflating numbers, but > even if that is the case, these paid engagements open the door for > future engagement by those who may not have otherwise connected with > the ASF. > > > > > > Ross > > > > Get Outlook for Android<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fghei36&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf6411c98057c495202a608d6f64d9b8a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636967210524578430&sdata=haJAL6f%2FQpvxe5%2BvVXZiJoiaZQIbVbu4bnc%2BTjGNjk4%3D&reserved=0> > > > > ________________________________ > > 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] > .invalid> > > 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fghei36&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf6411c98057c495202a608d6f64d9b8a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636967210524578430&sdata=haJAL6f%2FQpvxe5%2BvVXZiJoiaZQIbVbu4bnc%2BTjGNjk4%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.apache.org%2FgiFi&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf6411c98057c495202a608d6f64d9b8a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636967210524578430&sdata=j8blpmDAzNl763VLuvqVPh0hb%2FfvXZ4hCs3r2ufmWMM%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 > > > >
