Hey Ross, I think the reason is simply that we've talked ourselves into knots. I'm going to take this JFDI baton that I see lying here (oops, I mean the JDI baton) and run with it. Here's what I'm going to do:
* start a [DISCUSS] thread containing a concrete proposal for the board which keeps money which pays for code off of the foundation books. * allow the discussion to run as long as *new* points are being made. Repeating old points will not prevent me from moving on to the next step which is... * start a [VOTE] thread to run for 72 hours. * If the vote passes submit a request for approval to the board. Best Regards, Myrle On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:56 AM Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > OK. Thanks for the clarification Ted. > > I am still trying to understand why the proposed compromise position of > the ASF offering to find mentors for Outreachy interns without offering or > soliciting donations, is not moving forwards. > > I do understand why the ASF donating monies to Outreachy isn't moving > forward. I also understand why soliciting for donations to Outreachy is > probably a step too far right now. But I don't understand why we can't move > forwards at all. > > Can anyone tell me why we can't take a step forward here. I've not heard a > single voice in opposition of the compromise solution described above. I > may have missed it in the noise, I'm sorry if I did. If anyone here has a > concern with the compromise as a small reversible step please speak up. > > Otherwise I hope we can simply get on with that small reversible step and > put some energy into being constructive. > > Ross > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ________________________________ > From: Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 11:31:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we > are paying for code? Is that acceptable?) > > Ross, > > No. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't donate due to being a member > of the ASF. > > I drew no conclusions. I am merely trying to simplify and clarify some > statements others have made. My hope was to calm down the discussion and I > appreciate you pointing out that I was unclear. > > If you want to know my position, I personally don't have any problem with > external donations from any source to Outreachy being earmarked for ASF and > then having ASF designate through a GSOC-like process where the interns > actually work. > > In fact, I also personally don't have any problem with the ASF maintaining > a special fund that is separate from all normal donations which functions > something like a very short-term endowment specifically for interns to be > funded and directed using the same mechanism. I see both mechanisms as > essentially equivalent (and equivalently non-problematic). I agree that the > ASF should not fund coders except for very limited circumstances, but I > think that infra, web-site and very carefully controlled internships are > reasonable exceptions. > > Even though I find no problem with the second approach (with appropriate > controls), I also understand that others feel differently and some of those > others are on the board with me and thus will have a vote on the matter. No > matter what, I am happy to find a common ground if we can and have no > desire for a flamewar on the matter. > > > > > > Mostly, though, I have been listening rather than arguing. > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:18 PM Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So you are saying that because I'm a member of the foundation, a > > participant on this list and a reprentative of a sponsor I can't donate > > money to Outreachy and ask for the intern to work on projects here? > > > > What if I wasn't a member? > > > > What if I decide which project the intern works on rather than the ASF > > doing that? > > > > What if the intern decides? > > > > Ross > > > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:36:01 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we > > are paying for code? Is that acceptable?) > > > > Alex, > > > > I think that the position is that the ASF has substantial control if we > > induce donors to give funds to Outreachy that are earmarked for the ASF > and > > then have a strong (possibly highly distributed and not board-driven) > hand > > in picking what proposals are matched with interns. I don't think that > > there is a suggestion that the donations be open for any placement and I > > don't that there is a suggestion on the table for ASF to not have a voice > > in which projects get matched to interns. That voice or influence might > be > > as light as projects finding mentors and writing up possible projects and > > then accepting or rejecting intern candidates. > > > > That is pretty similar to the logic used in, say, campaign finance laws > > that coordination is the key question rather than whose name is on the > > check. > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/19, 4:02 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > the fact that we will orchestrating and directing the spending > > > of the funds from the beginning to the end > > > > > > I am still not understanding why having an entity provide money > directly > > > to Outreachy is "orchestrating and directing the spending of the funds > > from > > > the beginning to the end" in a way that is unprecedented and/or > harmful. > > > IMO, everyone contributing to the ASF should be trying to influence > other > > > entities to financially support the projects they care about. Unless > you > > > have signing authority, or organizational authority over the signing > > > authority, I don't get how you can be "directing the spending" instead > of > > > just lobbying/influencing. > > > > > > Maybe we need to drill down on that first. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > >
