Thanks Patricia, I think your point really illustrates what I am trying to say.
The ASF doesn't pay *anyone* to work on our software. There is no discrimination in that. Sure one can argue it creates less opportunity than paying for a few individuals, but that's not the same as discrimination. The ASF can, and should, do more to help people overcome the discrimination that *does* exist in the industry as a whole. I maintain that the ASF will make close to zero difference to the industry wide problem by taking on a few interns. Sure, having some interns is going to be valuable from an educational point of view and will undoubtedly help a few individuals, we should do it in the most friction free way possible. Fighting to overturn a working policy in order to enable a handful of internships isn't worth the effort or the perceived risk. Work around it. Personally I would much rather people focused energy on finding ways of leveraging the ASF in order to have a larger impact beyond the ASF. People are not thinking big enough. I believe an opportunity is being missed here. There is momentum and interest in Outreachy, why not leveerage it? The ASF has an education element to its mission. Why not explore ways in which Outreachy and ASF can work to create *more* internships beyond the ASF? We would have to be inventive about what this would look like, the ASF cannot spend its money on things that do not directly impact its mission, but the mission is pretty broad. Wouldn't potential sponsors be more excited about Outreachy and ASF working together? I suggest we draw a line under the internship proposal. There are sponsors looking to provide money directly to Outreachy for work on ASF projects, there's work to be done to create a landing place for those projects. Sage, in another part of this thread, suggested the ASF might donate into a general fund at Outreachy. Why not think bigger? Ross ________________________________ From: Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal Although I belong to a commonly marginalized group, women in computing, I was lucky enough to get my first job in 1970. During the 1970's, when I was building my career, people like Grace Hopper and Jean Sammet were very active. I don't think anyone I met seriously questioned whether women could be technical leaders. By the time programming became male-dominated, I was too firmly established to be affected. On 6/26/2019 4:54 PM, Sage Sharp wrote: > You've just had two people from marginalized groups in tech tell you that > the ASF policy is discriminatory. Maybe it's time to listen to their > experiences, rather than get defensive? > > My previous comment on this: > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fd024e2b8327772901a06c69e7b31df4e04662a01450b8d2390ac1ca1%40%253Cdev.diversity.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7Ce09fec7f5f4b4ea9f55008d6fa92962f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636971904828116156&sdata=fOccKbxt%2FRvcpY7xgew7SX1SOp7R4nDByD4ikRDIxI8%3D&reserved=0 > > When the ASF doesn't directly pay people to work on software, it becomes a > catch-22. Employers don't want to employ people from marginalized groups > because they don't have a software portfolio. A way to get a software > portfolio is to work on free software in their spare time, but people from > marginalized groups aren't likely to have the time or resources to do > unpaid work. The ASF doesn't want to pay people from marginalized groups to > write software. Thus the status quo remains. > > Unless free software communities start paying people from marginalized > groups (through Outreachy, GSoC, or travel grants), there will be no > improvement on the inequality in the software industry. > > Sage Sharp > Outreachy Organizer > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:45 PM Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I disagree. The ASF is designed to enable others to monetize or software >> do that *they* can pay people to contribute. >> >> If we pay for code we enter into competition with the those people. >> Thereby reducing the money available in the market to employ people. >> >> Do you really believe the ASF could create as many jobs as have been >> created by the industries that use our software? >> >> Creating software to create jobs is our role as a charity. It is not to >> create jobs directly. >> >> Ross >> >> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 4:36:12 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal >> >> Not paying for code is a highly discriminatory policy. >> >> A typical employed or retired programmer in wealthy country, faced with >> a wish to build a large body of code, will ask themselves, "Which of my >> computers should I use?". Downloading the code will be trivial over >> their unlimited-data, high-bandwidth, Internet connection. We do not >> notice our computer access or Internet bandwidth any more than a fish >> notices water. Doesn't everyone measure their data storage capacity in >> terabytes? >> >> Now consider, even in the US, a programmer who has developed some form >> of chronic fatigue, making the times they can work too unpredictable to >> hold down a job or reliably fulfill contracts, living off social >> security. Or someone in sub-Saharan Africa, who shares a computer with >> their village if they are lucky, and connects to the Internet by >> tethering to a phone with a limited data plan. >> >> Not paying for code means not just favoring those who have certain >> resources of time, computer power, and Internet bandwidth, but >> absolutely excluding those who do not have those resources and cannot >> afford them. >> >> The board may consider the principle of not paying for code so valuable >> as to outweigh its discriminatory nature, but please don't pretend it >> does not discriminate. >> >> >> On 6/26/2019 3:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> ... >>> I would encourage the committee to focus on building a proposal that >> fits within the expectations of the board, who act as they believe the >> membership expect. Arguing, about the validity of a long held policy, which >> itself does not discriminate, is a waste of time that could be better spent >> on mentoring individuals. >> .. >> >
