On 2019/06/29 04:48:56, Craig Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Given the D&I objectives for this program, I'd say that code is a byproduct
> and not the deliverable.
>
> If the objective of the program were code deliverables, this process would be
> completely different. And we would certainly pay folks more than $10/hour for
> their contributions.
>
> Craig
>
Craig, I appreciate the thought that went into this, but I also feel that the
thought process is flawed. It appears that the goal was to figure out some way
to justify funding outreach, and trying to find some way to justify doing so.
Instead, as a member of the board, as well as the ASF, it should have started
with the mindset that we have a policy, and does using Outreachy via a
pass-thru violate the letter and the spirit of that policy.
Somehow defining code as a “side product” is a mistake, I think. It is like
saying that code is a byproduct of the ASF and so really, when you get down to
it, anything and everything is ok. It is simple verbal “games” meant to
obfuscate.
Basically, the standpoint is “funding outreach via a pass-thru is important and
therefore we need to figure out some way to avoid or justify getting around a
20+ year policy”. I think that places the wants of D&I above the needs of the
ASF.
Again, I need to stress, I have failed to see any valid reason why the ASF MUST
pass-thru or even fund Outreachy directly when we have sponsors willing to fund
Outreachy themselves and we operate under a GSoC type model. The only reasons I
can see which have been proposed “it make it sucky for the sponsor (with no
supporting data to back up that statement)” or “its only 0.x% of our budget and
we should do it (the assumption being that we should be able to ignore basic
tenets of the ASF as long as it doesn’t cost too much).
Make no mistake, this is a violation of ASF policy. It directly impacts our
projects, by having a commt intrude on their development and should the board
approve, it is tacitly allowing a “president’s cmmt” to do something that is
expressly forbidden in the bylaws.
Finally, I find it sad that this cmmt finds it within its pursue to work out
ways around ASF policy when there is so much more it can, and should be doing.
That the 1st major effort of this cmmt is something controversial, something
directly attacking ASF policy, instead of all the things the board, and the
membership were told they were *going to do* is disheartening. This is not how
you handle D&I, this is not how you change hearts and minds, and the fact that,
IMO, that the cmmt is blinded by funding Outreachy, no matter what the costs,
have staked their reputation and the reputation of the ASF on a hill for no
viable nor rational reason. All most assuredly IMO.
I sincerely ask this cmmt to respect those numerous people, who have been
around for decades, who not only “drafted” the Apache Way but also protected it
(it being one of the main reasons for our success for 20+ years), who clearly
but unabashedly state that funding Outreachy directly, or as a pass-thru, does,
indeed, in their opinion, violate this tenet. Even mathematically, the vast
number of years of experience, as members, directors and officers, of those
saying “no”, far, far, far outweighs that of those saying “yes”. That should be
telling and, I hope, the cmmt members take that in mind.
