Hi all,
I agree that this thread has been very interesting to read! My quick thoughts:
- I favour the "for-profits pay/not-for-profits don't pay", single-price camp.
- I *strongly* support the creation of an ethics board to deal with these
issues. Although I agree with the "instructors' conscience" clause mooted by
Greg, there should certainly be limits. If the behaviour of certain members of
an organisation is sufficiently unethical, just associating with that
organisation becomes problematic, even if one did not participate in said
behaviour.
- Having said that, Monsanto gets way too bad a rap and teaching there does not
meet the "excessively egregious" criterion. See e.g.
http://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil/answer/Franklin-Veaux
Thanks,
Juan.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Raniere Silva <[email protected]>
wrote:
> This is a very interested thread.
> This Monday I get a email from one employ of [Petrobras] asking question
> of what need to organizing a Software Carpentry workshop.
> Petrobras is a big company in Brazil and could provide founds for
> in house workshops and at "affiliate" universities.
> Choose not teach for companies could reduce the chances of some workshops
> pay our fees.
> Note: the employ that contacted me couldn't convinced his supervisor
> that our workshops are important. =(
> [Petrobras]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
