The current ASF policy is already picking winners. It biases toward contributions from the people who can afford to volunteer their time for free software development.
>From a community volunteer's standpoint, the community seems "neutral". People succeed in making contributions to the community in their spare time. Some contributors find jobs with people who use the community's software. Everything seems to work. Except that it doesn't for people who are from marginalized groups in tech. A community will build its development workflow, communications channels, and leadership pathways for the people who are already in the community. If the community isn't diverse, they won't see the barriers that people from marginalized groups face. The barriers are invisible to them. If the ASF participates in Outreachy, you will discover what some of those barriers are. One barrier to participation that has already been identified by other free software communities is that requiring unpaid volunteer work is a burden to people from marginalized groups in tech. There is a specific set of people who can afford to volunteer their time for free software communities. This article breaks down some of the reasons why people from marginalized groups may not have the resources to volunteer their time: https://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss-community#diversity Potential employers often look at the job candidates' GitHub repositories to determine their software skills. That means the people who can afford to contribute unpaid labor are more likely to get a job in tech. Not paying people for free software development means people from marginalized groups in tech are less likely to have a software portfolio when looking for a job. Addressing inequality means that communities need to commit to making change. That means volunteer time, community effort towards changes, and yes, monetary resources. As I said on another thread: To do nothing is to accept the status quo. Sage Sharp Outreachy Organizer On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 1:09 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > I am missing completely how the below addresses the main issue that has > been explained, time and again, about the Outreachy effort: we do not pay > for development. > > I think people understand how Outreachy works, what the end goals are, how > laudable the effort is, and how great it would be if the ASF could support > it. But all that is moot and immaterial if, in doing so, it requires us to > simply ignore a basic tenet that we've had, and abided by, for decades (and > one that has been justified and explained countless times). > > Again: the ends do not (and can not be used to) justify the means.
