First and foremost, I acknowledge and respect the fact that you are conceding the point that the ASF funding Outreachy directly, or via pass-thru, is, indeed, in "violation" of the tenet that the foundation does not pay for development for our projects. I also understand and appreciate that such concession was not, and is not, easily nor readily come by. And I am pleased but also incredibly respectful that you have admitted as such.
So the issue in front of this cmmt, and therefore to the board, will be: considering that this engagement does, in fact, 'violate' this tenet, what are the justifications behind it, and what will the ultimate cost be to the foundation and our projects. Yes, of course, increased knowledge and insight into the issues related to D&I will be useful, but that knowledge, and insight, is not bought without cost. We are basically saying that if the "cause" is "worthy" then first principles are negotiable. At which point the floodgates are opened up with various discussions and debates on what is worthy, and what is not. And, IMO, that leads to disaster. First principle are there for reasons. There are there to make it easy to make "hard" decisions. Again, I agree that the ASF has a diversity pattern which is different from industry norms. I agree that we need to determine why that is. What I do NOT agree with is that this cmmt's 1st action should be in the ASF directly funding (or being a pass-thru) to Outreachy. This is especially true when we are told that we already have a sponsor (or sponsors) willing to fund Outreachy themselves on our behalf; this is especially true when we have not allowed fundraising the ability and authority to seek out sponsors willing to do the same. And finally, especially when THAT method, which totally avoids conflict with this tenet, is being "set aside" for something which creates these issues. Once again, WHY is the former not sufficient? Why is not seeking out sponsors who will fund Outreach directly, on our behalf, ala GSoC, NOT a sufficient and worthwhile endeavor. How, exactly, is the ASF directly sponsoring Outreachy providing "better" knowledge, insight or guidance as compared to the GSoC model. These are basic, serious questions. Even going by the ideal of small, easily reversible steps (and bypassing a basic tenet is neither of those), the "obvious" 1st step should be that: Have sponsors sponsor Outreachy on our behalf, find out what we can learn, if anything, and see if the engagement meets the desires we hope. I fail to see why that is not the most obvious, least-controversial path. What "extra" insight do we get by funding Outreachy directly that we cannot obtain via a path that would pass the muster of the board and the membership with almost assuredly no pushback at all. Why is that not something that this cmmt finds acceptable? What warrants the time, energy, hostility, anger, damaged relationships, and ill will with this insistence on the ASF funding Outreachy directly? I already said that if there were those w/i the ASF willing to pony up money and sponsor Outreachy ourselves (outside of the ASF) on the ASF's behalf, I'd commit to at least $1,000 on my end. I will make another commitment. I will also work w/ fundraising to find sponsors willing to sponsor Outreachy ala a GSoC process (non pass-thru). This is how serious I am in doing my part in helping.
