On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:02:29PM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: >... > And I will provide an inconvenient fact: > https://selfserve.apache.org/. That side was coded by contractors > paid for with ASF funds.
That is an apples to oranges comparison, and a red herring. Infra projects such as selfserve.a.o are not community-run projects that produce release artifacts for the public good. The code may *happen* to be in a publicly-visible repository (or possibly only visible to Apache committers), but we make no effort to make the code public and certainly do not attempt to establish "community over code" for Infra work. We have some excellent volunteers that provide expertise, but we do the vast majority of our work in private. This behavior is antithetical to what we expect and look for from our projects and communities. On the other hand, I've seen Myrle explain that the best Outreachy projects *are* those for the public good, run as part of Apache's desired governance approach. That the *goal* of a D&I internship is to educate/demonstrate-to the underserved about how our communities are egalitarian and welcoming. If Infra happens to pay for code to manage our services, that is a mere side effect (eg. selfserve.a.o is an Infra-selfish effort: reduce our ticket load; has little to do with software for the public good). The Foundation does not pay for code within our communities. That's a pretty simple point; historically accurate; and likely unchangeable. As noted elsethread, maybe D&I may want to apply energy to its remit, rather than to alter long-held tenets of the Foundation. I don't really mind what y'all choose, but don't look to Infra as a model. Cheers, -g
