On 2019/06/21 18:49:30, Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with you, Jim, that we should do this with run-of-the-mill TLPs>
>
At which point we are back to the fact that we are expressly and
directly conflicting with the "we don't pay for development" tenet.
Removing the ASF from the process path, where we do not handle the
money at all, we don't 'pass-thru' the funding from sponsor to
Outreachy, avoids all the problems. I realize that some have said
that that makes the sponsor experience sucky... This is what I wrote
on a board@ thread:
Consensus on fundraising seems to be that removing the ASF from that
process/loop directly is Most Desirable. And personally, I think most sponsors
would understand why we would want that (see the threads on fundraising about
money-laundering)...
At the end, the Sponsor gets exactly what they want, D&I gets what it wants
and needs, no basic tenets/principles of Apache are affected, and interns get
to work on whatever Apache project they want to. That seems like a
win-win-win-win to me.
Cheers!
