On 2019/07/01 16:39:53, 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.> > ++1. Glad to see this being resolved and the possibility of real work being done on the horizon.
