Speaking as the sponsor in question, I don't need the parts of the proposal that Ross is concerned about, but let me explain the background which led Myrle to insert that text.
What I seek to avoid is the ASF opposing this sponsorship after the check has been sent to Outreachy. There are some people with concerns that haven't been expressed on this list. Some of those concerns may lead to the conclusion that having sponsors acting independently of ASF wishes, however well meaning they are in doing so, may lead to problematic results. All I am seeking is some sort of confirmation that the ASF is aware of the intent to donate and that there is consensus that it will make an effort to seek projects and mentors. Lazy consensus is sufficient for my purposes. - Sam Ruby On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:40 PM Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Feel free to keep the funding reference, but if I were to be donating money > to Outreachy all I would care about is that the ASF were configured to match > mentors to interns on the terms Outreachy set. Such a donor would not require > ASF board approval and, frankly, would likely be upset at the idea that the > ASF board can dictate how a charitable donation to another foundation can be > used. > > Why is this important? Because your first line says "D&I has been approached > by a potential sponsor who wishes to support the participation of Outreachy > in ASF projects by donating directly to Outreachy.". What is there is another > sponsor who has not approached the ASF? I really think you should just drop > that first sentence. This is not about the approach of a sponsor, this is > about your second sentence "D&I wishes to perform UX research on the > experience of members of underrepresented groups as they get started with our > communities. " > > Furthermore, you say "currently offered". What if there is another Outreachy > sponsor who has not "offered" anything to the ASF? > > I appreciate you are trying to accommodate a specific offer from a specific > sponsor but I believe you are unnecessarily narrowing the opportunity in > doing so. I believe the existence of a sponsor is irrelevant to what we are > notifying the board of. The only thing that I believe the board can say yay > or nay to (in the above scenario) is whether they are willing to accept the > idea of D&I building a bridge between Outreachy and ASF so that Outreachy > interns can find ASF mentors. > > All that said, if you really want to keep it in there then go ahead. > > Ross > > ________________________________ > From: Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 8:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Notify the board that D&I intends to coordinate an > Outreachy intern program > > Thank you for the patch Ted. I made a minor adjustment to it because > Outreachy receives funding for interns for other foundations all the time. > Integrated, that looks like this. Please check. > > I'm rejecting suggestions to remove mentions of funding altogether because > the sponsor needs some kind of reassurance that the board accepts the use > of their funds on behalf of the ASF, even if they are being donated > directly to Outreachy. I'm also rejecting those suggestions because I > think use of funding through third parties but directed by us does have > some potential dangers regardless of whether the funding reaches ASF > accounts, and which require remediation and which I do not wish to obscure. > > Best, > Myrle > > ----------------- > Subject: [NOTICE] D&I intends to coordinate an Outreachy intern program. > > Background: D&I has been approached by a potential sponsor who wishes to > support the participation of Outreachy in ASF projects by donating directly > to Outreachy. D&I wishes to perform UX research on the experience of > members of underrepresented groups as they get started with our > communities. This offer provides us with an excellent opportunity to do so. > > Currently offered funding levels are enough to cover 3 interns. D&I plans > to accept this offer, and provide the following support: > > * Advertise this opportunity to projects and seek proposals. > * Manage the project submission process to Outreachy, including filtering > out unsuitable project proposals, and, if necessary, making a final > selection of intern-project pairs. > * Ask interns for feedback on their experiences at various times throughout > the internship. > * Provide appropriate and useful feedback to the Foundation and to the > projects about opportunities to improve how welcoming we are, and what we > can improve on. > * Use this as an opportunity to increase awareness and acceptance of the > ASF in communities which we are currently not reaching as well as we would > like. > > If Outreachy receives funding for more than 3 interns for the ASF, we will > facilitate the placement of such additional interns with Apache projects, > but we > plan to keep the initial rounds of this project relatively small for > learning purposes. > > ----------------- > The road ahead on this proposal is as follows (** indicates where we are > now): > * Start a [DISCUSS] thread. > ** Allow the discussion to run as long as *new* points are being made. > * Start a [VOTE] thread to run for 72 hours. > * Submit a [NOTICE] to the board. > * Wait 72 hours for potential board objections. > * Get to work. > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:13 AM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > If D&I finds funding for more than 3 interns, we intend to accept it, but > > > we plan to keep the initial rounds of this project relatively small for > > > learning purposes. > > > > > > > Let's fix this wording to avoid unnecessary allergic responses. > > > > The problem and risk that I see here is that D&I is not accepting any > > funding for interns. Outreachy is. Saying the word "accept" with respect to > > this funding may lead some to think that D&I is challenging, uhhmmm, core > > beliefs (hah! didn't say it). In fact, I do not think that you intend to do > > such and I, for one, would rather avoid an exhausting and pointless > > argument of the form "You must not do this! ... We don't plan to ... But > > you must not! ... We aren't doing it ... *ad infinitum*". > > > > How about this for alternative language that makes the actual intent more > > clear: > > > > *If Outreachy receives funding for more than 3 interns, we will facilitate > > the placement of such additional interns with **Apache projects, but we > > plan to keep the initial rounds of this project * > > *relatively small for **learning purposes.* > >
