On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:16 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2019/06/24 15:44:40, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm not arguing against asking sponsors to skip us and go to Outreachy.> > > But it doesn't actually solve the neutrality problem. > > Of course it does.
Not for public consumption, but I have shared on another (ASF private) list that we have a sponsor who may be willing to skip us and go to Outreachy: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2f424fa950f7cd56f83f2cb4a0ada5edef2b9249150174176eb24e15@%3Cfundraising.apache.org%3E I know of another two potential sponsors that may be willing to do likewise. I ask everybody to not talk about specific sponsors and what their intentions on a public list. But rest assured that if that indeed is a constraint, it can be met. > > Neutrality, or lack of it, comes when we pick the winners. > > As mentioned before, this focus on phrasing/defining "neutrality" that way is > incorrect and misses the point completely. If the entirety of the concern can be addressed with accounting changes, that's good news. The remaining question is whether proposal scoring and acceptance based on scores (like is done at GSoC) could be seen as picking winners. If somebody has that concern, then let's discuss it. - Sam Ruby
