On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 6:34 PM Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:18 PM Sage Sharp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 4:09 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Griselda Cuevas > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The framework that Naomi and I proposed will requiere an application > > > > process, where projects interested will need to be able to provide > > > > resources like mentors, time and documenting. > > > > > > > > The selection process based on this seems to me fair and not picking > a > > > > winner. > > > > > > So what if more projects apply than what ASF is paying Outreachy > covers? > > > > > > > I've answered that question on another thread. Please read that email. > > > > > > > > Picking a winner would mean we hand select the projects and we work > with > > > > them to groom them for participation. > > > > > > But we will have to if there would be more applicants than resources. > > > > > > > Again, please see the other email I sent explaining the process for > > communities to request Outreachy general funding if they have more > interns > > than sponsorship funds. > > I believe this would be the email: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/291c99821cecb05e5dedbd3818ac19c73b9584c6795f602928780b14@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > And the following would qualify that recommendation a bit: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0f2f99adf9375ebbfb7ba0a9712e2ea5bb9c3f7a83e956d167a5d7e8@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > Assuming there are sponsors (which at this point appears to be a safe > assumption), there still would need to be a selection criteria applied > by somebody other than Outreachy. Perhaps by the sponsor(s), but > ideally (to my mind) by the ASF. Ideally, yes, the ASF should be involved in making intern selection decisions. If a for-profit company sponsor was involved in making the decision, I would be concerned about an undue influence towards an intern selection that benefits the company. E.g. picking someone who lives near a company branch rather than someone living in Africa, in the hopes that the company could hire them after the Outreachy internship. Having a non-profit involved rather than a corporate sponsor is encouraged. > Question for Roman and other ASF Directors: is it fair to assume that > from a selection point of view, Outreachy is sufficiently similar to > GSoC, so something along the following lines would suffice: > > Would you be comfortable if the D&I committee were to adopt/adapt the > GSoC process? > > http://community.apache.org/mentee-ranking-process.html > If not, what additional constraints need to be met? > Parts of that process could be reused to evaluate Outreachy applicants. However, one very important difference between GSoC and Outreachy is that *mentors* propose projects, not applicants. The process would need to change to rate the Outreachy applicants' contributions and communication during the contribution phase of the application process. Otherwise the document looks fairly solid, and provides a fair way to evaluate applicants to make intern selections. Note: I am explicitly not asking about any financial aspects of this - > there I am assuming that if sponsors were to bypass the ASF (with the > ASF's blessing!) that would be one way to resolve that issue; once we > have established one possible solution that should give us breathing > room to explore if other solutions are possible. > Sage Sharp Outreachy Organizer >
