On 2019-06-27 15:04, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jun 2019, at 20:59, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-06-27 13:22, Naomi S wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 18:52, Ross Gardler
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen NO discussion on the topic of who the mentors are and minimal
>>>> discussion on how we evaluate proposals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will note that this very thread ("[DISCUSS] Outreachy framework
>>> proposal") was supposed to be the start of that conversation.
>>
>> And I would like to continue that topic, but until the noise abates and
>> the S/N is restored here, I refuse to do so. I simply haven't the energy
>> to wade through the piles of vitriol.
>>
>> I'll leave a few points here, and hopefully someone can pick up on them:
>>
>> * We need a double blind evaluation system that masks project name,
>> applicant name, specific details, etc.
>> * We need a way to ensure that mentors actually are capable of
>> committing the time necessary for this programme, to check in with
>> the admins on regular intervals to ensure this is happening, and to
>> blacklist them from future involvement if they are unable to meet
>> those expectations and they do not have an acceptable excuse, since
>> real money will have been wasted. (Doctor's note, death in the
>> family, etc.)
>> * We need a double-check that the projects involved agree to follow
>> not just the ASF CoC, but the Outreachy CoC, and any other imposed
>> requirements
>> * We need a ruler by which we can measure the quality of the project
>> in terms of its suitability for an intern - what will the intern
>> *gain* by working on the project? Or is it just self-interest of
>> the requesting PMC/org? Quantified and qualified, preferably.
>> * We need to review the tagged areas Outreachy provides to ensure
>> that the applications we vet cover a broad range of opportunities
>> within our Foundation, not 100% documentation or internal-facing
>> tools.
>> * We should find a volunteer to reach out to our compatriots within
>> Fedora and Debian to see how they coordinate and vet their
>> similar opportunity programs.
>
> And to add - quite a few of those are excellent examples of chores one would
> not want to burden a volunteer who came here to code with — but where the ASF
> would be willing to pay someone to do this if a community so desires it.
Hmmm. Yes, but...
As Sage and I have both mentioned, it is unfair to ask an
underprivileged group to do work *you're* unwilling to do so that they
"level their own playing field." It reeks of "that work's beneath me."
Or "it's not as important as the work I'm doing."
If the ASF isn't willing to do this work itself - at the Foundation
level, or within D&I, or at the PMC level - then that's key evidence
showing a clear barrier to entry, isn't it? Why would the collected
minds here eschew that work and force an intern to do it?
Not to say we can't look for a way to make the work palatable,
important, and still pay for the work, but an intern would still be
working with an ASF committer/mentor 5-10 hours a week...they're
certainly not doing this work on their own. So it's not like the work
gets thrown over the wall, anyway.
And for the record - I didn't come to the ASF to code, though I do so
regularly. Please do not make a statement that implies that the most
important volunteers at the ASF are only coders.
-Joan "that's not a chip on my shoulder" Touzet
