On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Thanks! To be clear, I have said that the ASF funding Outreachy directly, or via pass-thru is effectively paying for code, even if we are not the ones paying the interns. I have not said that it violated any tenet. So it may not be as big of a step as you think, but it is a step. May I ask you if you would be willing to take the following step: can I get you to agree that asking our Fundraising team to approach existing and potential sponsors and asking them that instead of directing funds to us where we could manage them, they should instead fund Outreachy and to explicitly specify that those funds are to be use for the development of ASF projects would be effectively us orchestrating or directing the paying for code, even if those funds never officially touch our books? If you join me there, then perhaps we can move beyond trying to make this appear consistent with our principles, and actually discussing what needs to be done. - Sam Ruby
