Hey Kevin, There've been lots and lots of cases of quoting me out of context and this is one of them. The result has been a lot of "answers" that weren't really answers at all. That would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that now some participants are claiming "I've answered this many times", when in fact they haven't answered it at all.
I'm hoping this can be corrected with a simple fix: I'm going to bring the context back in. On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/27/2019 11:52 AM, Myrle Krantz wrote: > > How does keeping the funds for internships off the ASF books solve this > > issue? > > Keeping the funds outside of the ASF uses the same model that exists > today where in many cases, companies pay for contributors who work on > ASF projects and that affiliations are unrelated to the merit of the > contribution. > Here's what was cut: On 6/27/2019 11:52 AM, Myrle Krantz wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:08 AM Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > wrote: >> IOW, whatever F# selected is still OK, while in our case, if Geode > >> gets selected and Ignite doesn't -- that may be an issue. > > How does keeping the funds for internships off the ASF books solve this > > issue? I'd be curious about the answer to this question for GSoC too. > Now. Kevin, How does keeping the funds outside of the ASF make Ignite feel better if Geode is selected for an internship and Ignite isn't? I'd be curious about the answer to this question for GSoC too. Your previous answer does not answer this question. > I do not believe the board should vote to allow us to use our own funds > for Outreachy as that pays for "code" which is a long-standing no-no. > We are not a religion. We do not take principles on faith. We are responsible for the shape of our foundation. We can't abdicate that responsibility just by shrugging our shoulders and saying: "core tenant", "founding principle". Yes, there are natural limits to how we can change and how fast we can change; we have to acknowledge these. But we don't need to add artificial limits. However, I do think the board should A) Accept the donation given to > Outreach giving us 3 interns, B) monitor the experiment specifically by > asking for monthly reports from D&I and C) ask Fundraising to look into > getting another sponsor to come on board with 10.5K to match the > original budget request for Outreachy in the same manner the other > sponsor already has done. > > Hopefully, this clarifies the position I think D&I should take in > requesting board action. I am further happy to help by advertising the > request for D&I for a sponsor for the $10.5K. > Your position is already clear, and this isn't the first time I've acknowledged this position. I'm also 100% certain you are taking that position because you believe it is best for the foundation. And, because my rhetoric above is rougher than what I like to use, let me add a sincere compliment. You're awesome Kevin, and I appreciate all you've done for the foundation. : o) Best Regards, Myrle
