> On 27 Jun 2019, at 20:22, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:18 PM Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We don't pay for development. We are not here to develop code. We are here >> to build communities. > > We do pay for development in certain cases.
Sorry Sam - while I agree it is more complex; it is certainly not the case that the ASF 'pays for code’ in the context now at hand - i.e. that what the ASF is for to help its communities work on. > We are not here to > develop code [this point I agree with]. Investing modest sums with > Outreachy will benefit our communities. So why the need to `invest’ ? Why then not 1) either scale this down to whatever level Outreachy can fund itself (from its own coffers, received from people/companies or sponsors associated with our community or elsewhere) in sofar as this goes to those that work on code (and top-slice it for its own cost if that is feasible). Or 2) if that is not feasible — separately look IF the ASF needs to pay organisations such as Outreachy (or any other payment handler and coordinator) to provide a direct admin service to a community (just like we pay for bandwidth, or legal). Because we find that the work is valuable to that community - but not one that volunteers are equipped to handle. E.g. assist these communities with the paperwork, selection processes, coordination, verification and what not. I.e. stay well out of the path between the community and the intern (and what he or she would like to work on). And purely administratively enable. Dw
