On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 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
This doesn't fully answer my concern. It simply introduced yet another stage in the process: Outreachy general fund. There seems to be a mismatch in the example that was given in that thread with how ASF operates. To quote: ||| For example, last round the F# Software Foundation listed four projects when they only had funding for one intern. This example is not applicable to ASF. It can only be applicable at a PMC level. F# foundation doesn't have somewhat competing projects. We do. IOW, whatever F# selected is still OK, while in our case, if Geode gets selected and Ignite doesn't -- that may be an issue. > 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. Selection criteria of what/who? > 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? To me that's not a *selection* that's a *vetting* criteria. Sure, I trust Outreachy in that as much as I trust GSoC. The question is still what do we do if we don't have enough interns. The only plausible way out of it would be to let interns themselves deicide which TLP to contribute to (without any influence of ASF or D&I whatsover). Is this what is being proposed here? Thanks, Roman.
