On 27 Jun 2019, at 17:32, Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> wrote:
.. snip threath / etc … > I'm not disagreeing with you or Sam. However, the ASF has a core tenet that > we don't pay for code and funding outreachy directly will likely cross a > threshold that we are doing so. And indirectly crosses that threshold too. The ASF has as a core tenet that it does not pay for code (it does not tell its coders what to code, etc). As a result it is relatively neutral, etc; avoids directing-earmarked funds. One follows from the other. Not the other way round. This is true for the ASF - but not for the members in our community. Intentionally so. I.e. at the same time - we do let the market `direct’ our volunteers. They choose what to work on — but this may well be part of what their bosses pay them for. We accept code from the market. And that is good - it gives us a very strong feedback loop to focus on what people, our people, care for. And we’re not getting in their way (unless it is to protect them & the community). Community over code. And yes - that community indirectly includes a lot of commercial parties. So I am wondering - if Outreachy would like to do this — then great — And why not grab this with both hands and let Outreachy simply fund these mentors themselves ? Just like we do for other contributions. Much like our communities accept that employers `pay’ our volunteers to work on ASF code. Or accept that google pays students during the summer ? So our relation with Outreachy would be just like with every other volunteer in the ASF ecosystem — contribute. Dw.
