On 2019-06-28 2:17 a.m., Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
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.
Thanks, apology accepted.
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.
It sounds like we're in agreement...however, I just wanted to say, for
what it's worth, that my big responsibilities to the ASF projects that I
support are:
* Issue triage and management
* Answering questions from the community re: the project
* Community building based on the above - such as encouraging people to
write code, documentation, and to do a good job
* Project management
* Release engineering
* CI/CD
I agree that these efforts are far, far more important than my time on
the D&I committee, the board, or this or on other mailing lists. But
most of these aren't directly "furthering the codebase" of those
projects. They are amplifying others' efforts so that the entire project
benefits.
Do you see how your statement could be read in a way that excludes my
work, or those of other non-code contributors?
I think we both would agree that non-code contributors are essential to
our projects and that we need to welcome them with bigger arms, but our
language sometimes still lags behind.
-Joan
