I think it would be useful to limit the poll to whether the ASF should pay for software in order to support people from under-represented groups or make ASF communities more accessible or inclusive. It should not be about the larger question of whether the ASF should pay for software at all.
Sage Sharp Outreachy Organizer On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:57 PM Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 7/3/2019 5:26 AM, Naomi S wrote: > > splitting this off to keep Myrle's thread on topic > > > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:49, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> We have the technology (via STeVe) to have a non-binding poll the > >> membership. We will have an election coming up in March-ish 2020. > >> The decision to fund interns from ASF funds is a binary one. > >> > >> My sense is that the board has been asked to make a difficult > >> decision, and is not ready yet to do so. We however have a path > >> forward that will give us more data, and we can put in place a plan to > >> poll the membership for guidance on the matter. We can ask those that > >> wish to do so to prepare a position paper (one each, pro and con) that > >> can guide the membership in casting their votes. > >> > > > > this sounds like a good idea to me > > > > I wouldn't' necessarily set March as the deadline. as a committee, we > might > > not feel ready to make that move at that point. depends what our > experience > > is like with Outreachy and what sorts of results we can show > > > > but in general, this seems like a reasonable way forward, should the > > committee decide that we want to pursue this avenue once again with a bit > > more experience under our belt > > > > I think there is a big picture question that is suitable for a > non-binding member vote: > > Should not paying for development be considered a tool for the purpose > of developing open source software for the public good, with the option > for the board to make exceptions, or an axiom with no exceptions or > adjustments possible? > > Assuming it is a tool, not an axiom, so exceptions are possible, I think > the board, not the membership, is the proper body for evaluating the > detailed merits of a particular case for an exception or adjustment. > > This approach also removes March as a possible deadline for D&I. If the > vote goes for the tool view, D&I could present a case for an exception > to any board meeting. If it goes for axiom, D&I will know where they > stand, and that exceptions are very unlikely. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > >
