On 2019/06/25 01:34:16, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?>
I am not a Director, but, IMO, you cannot pretend that the GSoC process is
similar to the proposed Outreachy effort when we are using the ASF as a
pass-thru. That is a significant and fundamental difference.
Using the ASF as a pass-thru you are directly paying for development. You can
ignore that all you want, and create some process which mirrors how we handle
GSoC, but all that is moot. You cannot try to work around that by saying "Look,
we are handling Outreachy just like we handle GSoC, and GSoC is OK, so that
means that this Outreachy engagement must be OK as well, or else we are lying
to ourselves regarding being neutral". That is purposely and disingenuously
muddying the water.
Again, it is NOT the process per-se which is the issue. It is the path that
that money takes.
I asked in an earlier thread what the difference was between using Outreachy
and just hiring the interns directly. The main reason I asked that was to make
it clear is that one reason for using Outreachy is to provide a diversion
layer, a buffer, so that the fact that we are directly paying for development
is somewhat obfuscated. It's because we are aware that we are paying for
development, that we also know that that is Not Allowed, and we are trying to
figure out some way around it, without changing the fundamental fact that, at
the end of the day, we are STILL paying for development.
