Expanding on my comment below. GSoC and Outreachy both provide stipends for people who are developing code.
In one case, the cause is to introduce students to open source. In the other, the cause is to increase diversity. Both are worthy causes. In one case, we literally are in the position to pick winners and losers, and we are comfortable with that as we do so with well defined criteria that are product and technology neutral. In the other, the decision will be made by a third party according to well defined criteria that are product and technology neutral. I don't see the slippery slope here. I'll borrow words from Naomi: this is the same rebuttal I have to the "slippery slope" argument. it presumes that we are unable to exercise good judgment when required to do so. I'll add that slippery slope itself is itself a fallacy, from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope: The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture. This is a cause the ASF should not passively leave to others. It is our problem. We now have identified an independently administered mechanism that will address the neutrality concerns. One that is used by other FOSS foundations. Let's join them. - Sam Ruby On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:34 PM Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:47 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > P.S. It feels like this is the closest (and cleanest) we can come to take > > care of the neutrality concerns. I also feel that we will still have to > > tackle > > "ASF now pays for software development" optics of this and make a sort > > of executive decision around whether the pros of the program outweigh the > > cons of the blowback. Or not. > > The pays for part should not be an issue. I have a credible offer by > a sponsor to pay for 3 interns in December. I've shared details of > this offer privately with the committee[1]. These funds will flow > directly from the sponsor to Outreachy. I'm hopeful that other > sponsors will join. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/355b4e7c6395fb8825bb1c317876e4c10113df6eb08da1cd92030cd6@%3Cprivate.diversity.apache.org%3E
