On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:20 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > Community Over Code may imply Code is secondary or byproduct of a software project at Apache. In reality, code and community are of equal importance. > 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. >
