Thanks Myrle. For the record I don't believe the board needs to apporove anything in what I understand the compromise to be. No policy changes, no overhead on the foundation other than volunteer time freely given.
Of course we do need to ensure what I believe the proposal to be is the same as what others believe. But we can do that right here without explicit board approval. Thank you for volunteering to write it up. Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 12:23:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?) 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 > > > > > > > > >
