I'm afraid that this isn't how the foundation works. One cannot unilaterally decide that a policy doesn't apply because it doesn't directly have a measurable impact on neutrality.
I agree with the statistical argument. I agree we need to find a way of doing this. But I do not agree we can simply state that the policy does not apply. It does. The committee could make an argument for an exception to be added to theft policy. I'd advise against that, as if will likely raise concerns about a slippery slope. It has been suggested that interns be limited to internal projects, but this is countered by the fact that these are not true ASF public projects and thus the educational value is limited. It has been suggested that we ask spomsors to donate directly to Outreachy. I've not seen anyone argue against this proposal (apologies if I missed something). Maybe there are other approaches. This is one of the fundamental differences between the ASF and every other foundation or there. It is at the core of why we are successful. I cannot see the board accepting a proposal that does not directly address this concern. Personally I believe the simpledt approach is to have sponsors give their money to Outreachy while ASF offers self-nominating volunteer mentors. However, I see a potential missed opportunity in this. Both the ASF and Outreachy are 501c(3)'s. I believe we can help one another significantly. Let's be inventive. How can we leverage one another to bring more success? At present the conversation is about simply using Outreachy to help the ASF take on some interns. Can't we be more aggressive than this? What can ASF plus Outreachy do together to raise awareness of the program? What can we do together to share the knowledge gained? What can we do to help those not lucky enough to recurve an internship? Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 8:09:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal Hey Ross, I think it's clear that we can't "buy" our way out of the diversity problem. However, the neutrality argument doesn't seem to apply in any situation in which we are "picking winners", whether the money comes from us or not. If there are a limited number of interns (Outreach, or GSoC, ASoC, etc), and we are deciding which projects those interns work on, then we are not neutral. Whether or not the money passes through our accounts seems to be a bit of a red herring (unintentional, I'm sure). At the same time, interns are temporary. And projects don't just benefit from them; interns also cost a community considerable time and effort to bring in. So projects are not incentivized to ask for an unlimited number of interns. In fact projects accepting interns should be recognized for their contribution to ASF as a whole; they are giving more than they are taking. The neutrality argument seems less relevant in this situation for that reason as well. Best Regards, Myrle On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:05 PM Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > This is awesome. Thank you. > > It did not, however, address the "paying for code" issue. > > I don't think anyone can make a supportable argument against the value to > the D&I effort, at least I can't think of one. However, in order to be > accepted as a proposal it is very important that the framework clearly > addresses the fact that we do not pay for code. > > Did you and Gris discuss this? It has been discussed alot on this list, > there are some concrete ideas for addressing this concern. How are these > ideas going to be rolled into the proposal? > > Ross > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ________________________________ > From: Naomi Slater <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal > > I was lucky enough to catch up with Gris last week in Berlin for dinner. I > shared some of my ideas about I think we should work with Outreachy. as it > happens, it matches up quite well with what she already had in mind. and we > realized that elaborating on this stuff will hopefully do a better job of > explaining how this benefits the foundation > > here's a rough sketch of what I am proposing: > > > - getting Outreachy interns working on our projects isn't the end goal. > we shouldn't be thinking of this as a way to improve our demographics > one > intern at a time > > our primary objective, as a committee, is to improve the foundation by > making our communities more welcoming, safe, inclusive, fair, easy to > contribute to, and so on. to that end, we need to understand the > experiences that people from under-represented groups have while trying > to > contribute > > - Outreachy presents a fantastic opportunity to work with and learn from > people as they go through that process > > from the D&I committee's perspective, the purpose of each internship > should be to gather as much information as possible about the intern's > journey. and that information should focus on areas that relate to our > primary objective > > - mentors are responsible for gathering this information, and reporting > back to the D&I committee regularly. in particular, we should look at > creating something like what Google calls friction logs. (thanks to Gris > for explaining this to me!) > > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevrel.net%2Fdeveloper-experience%2Fan-introduction-to-friction-logging&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C85ebdcb5449d4f66ba3a08d6f8b5fa97%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636969857809316318&sdata=RD%2B%2BxuqWAY81zG%2FsbsKdmXchc1CJOHOAaQD94vmlMZQ%3D&reserved=0 > > a friction log is a form of user research, and this will complement the > other research we're planning > > the difference here is that the information we gather through Outreachy > will be coming from people who are directly trying to contribute to the > ASF. whereas, the other research we are planning will focus on surveying > people who have not contributed > > combined, this will give us a better picture of the overall "funnel" > (i.e., the stages of someone's awareness of, and involvement with, the > foundation). something we discussed on the lists, early this year > > now, some additional details about how I propose we structure the program: > > - mentors will have two primary responsibilities: > > > 1. working with the intern, per Outreachy's own framework > 2. reporting back to the D&I committee, per a D&I mentorship > framework that we will develop > > > - each mentorship requires a steward from the D&I committee. that > steward is responsible for working with the mentor to ensure they follow > the D&I mentorship framework > > - the primary deliverable for each mentorship is a report (or set of > reports) to the D&I committee. reports are standardized as a part of the > D&I mentorship framework and will include friction logging and other > information pertinent to our primary objective. we will improve this > framework over time. (and indeed, we may be able to adapt it for other > sorts of internships) > > - the D&I committee will then: > 1. handle all reports, synthesize them and attempt to draw > conclusions > 2. develop recommendations based on those conclusions > 3. publish findings on our website or blog > 4. socialize those findings within the foundation > > - it will be up to the individual projects within the foundation to > decide how to make use of findings we publish. we will encourage people > to > use [email protected] (analogous to users@) as a support > forum for working with the information we publish > > > hopefully, with a structure like this in place, the Outreachy proposal > starts to address some of the outstanding concerns that people have > > and I am hoping that we can develop this proposal into something more > concrete > > thanks! >
