On 28 Jun 2019, at 00:15, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> * 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.”
Sorry - that is not what I meant at all. What I wanted to look at is explore if we can get the interns paid through Outreachy from direct funds from sponsors; bypassing the ASF. Thus avoiding to `pay for code’. And have the ASF pay the Outreachy organisation (or anyone else really that does this) for the services provided. I believe there is already a 500$ top-slice it does on any placed intern to fund its own processes. Processes that are useful and valuable to the ASF. As the ASF paying for these sort of services does not run foul of the market distortion issues. > 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. Actually - while I am fully with you from a personal perspective — I do think that that the most important thing of the ASF is not its `head’ or the board— but the body of committers & contributors furthering their various codebases. And I really would call that the most important thing. Boards, committees and what not serve the community that codes. They are second to that. Dw
