On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 2:59 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wow! I've spent all of this time reading all of these emails and came away > with a completely different idea of what is going on. > > It sounds like there is one entity who is willing to cut a check to Outreachy > for 3 interns. Does anybody have an objection to having that entity cut that > check to Outreachy? Or the way the entity was convinced to agree to cut said > check? > > Maybe we can focus just on these two questions and arrive at general > consensus so we can get on to the next hard problem which is finding enough > ASF projects with viable mentors who can complete the application process for > Outreachy in time for the next round. > > IMO, every other concern/worry can wait until after we get general consensus > on having that entity cut a check. > > What do others think? I have no objections. I think I've read plenty of > emails where various ASF members/officers/directors guide other entities on > how to use that entity's money to help individual projects. We have an > entity that will not pass money through the ASF and will hopefully result in > 3 interns making tangible contributions to 3 projects. I work for a > different entity that does not pass money through the ASF and results in me > making tangible contributions to 2 projects.
Thanks! As the one most exposed by this, I don't want to leave any stone unturned that will later bite me. More background: years ago, Cliff Schmidt created the "category A, B, and X" scheme that guides Legal Affairs today. He couldn't get consensus, and left to support the cause of literacy in Africa. I took over and got yelled at. A lot. After a while, I wrote: http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html We have a strong tradition here of independence and being vendor neutral. We don't pick winners and losers. "We don't pay for code" is a useful approximation of those values. It has plenty of exceptions, just like the ones that described in the link above. There are some here who are saying that perhaps if we meet the letter of the law but not the spirit by we can abide by the "we don't pay for code" approximation by not actually touching the funds ourselves, despite the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds from the beginning to the end. If that lets people sleep better at night, I'm OK with it. But I don't want to hide in any way what we are doing here. > HTH, > -Alex - Sam Ruby P.S. Once the check is cut, we have up to two years to find projects and mentors. From Outreachy's FAQ: Q: If I sponsor a specific FOSS community and that community doesn't find an intern, what happens? A: Sometimes FOSS communities don't have enough applicants, or their best applicant accepts another opportunity. Outreachy will try to encourage applicants towards communities that do not have enough applicants but we cannot guarantee that a community will find a suitable intern. We will use our best efforts to work with the sponsor and use the funds for that particular community or another that the sponsor prefers for two years, after which we'll use them for any Outreachy activity. https://www.outreachy.org/sponsor/ > On 6/29/19, 12:49 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2019/06/29 19:24:09, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I understand the differences of opinion. What I don't understand is why > one position or the other has to be proven "right" before we can start > actually working with interns. > > > > One is controversial; the other is not. If the true goal was in starting > this effort, quickly, the obvious, logical selected method would be to use > the uncontroversial method, would it not? > > In other words, with the uncontroversial method, things could be started > NOW. The controversial method is assured to result in continued (justified, > IMO) discussion and debate, resulting in delaying this effort. Even just > considering that, and nothing else, the insistence on the paying > direct/pass-thru option seems diametrically opposed to the idea that doing > this quickly is important. > >
