Hey Ross, I'll adjust accordingly: I'll make this a proposal to notify the board rather than a request for approval.
Best, Myrle On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 9:39 AM Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
