The major question for open-source is how to avoid making a wealth transfer from one set of engineers (the creators of open-source) to another, non-intersecting set (the freeloaders of open-source). For software, there's enough of an intersection between users and creators that the creators appear to gain more in productivity (and thus wages) than they lose to other economic forces. It's hard to know.
As I understand it, the existence of Software Carpentry as a non-profit, mostly-volunteer organization stems from the inadequate public funding allocated to scientific research, exacerbated by the awkward structure of higher education and unfortunate circumstances of graduate students. I'd be frustrated if Software Carpentry shifted from trying to alleviate this pain to instead exploiting one group (mostly academics) for the benefit of another (industry scientists and their employers). The morality of volunteering for corporations is comparable to the intersection between the creators and users of open-source training. How many volunteers will benefit economically? How many scientists will face lower wages because some of their peers choose to volunteer? On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Erik Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Greg Wilson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2. Other people have said that corporations should be charged market rates. >> I'm all in favor of bringing in more money (after all, that's what pays my >> salary) but what about Harvard? They're sitting on a $29 billion endowment >> - should we charge them what we charge the Fortune 500? How about small >> companies: do we ask a start-up less than we ask Monsanto? We've already >> started down this road by not charging admin fees for workshops in less >> affluent countries; should the subcommittee that the executive is putting >> together to regularize fee waivers look at charging market rates for >> companies, affluent institutions, or some other group? > > Late to this discussion, so sorry if I'm just rehashing/adding to the > noise. But I would like to second this. Individual instructors are > of course free to do whatever they feel like, but I would not feel > comfortable if SWC were making distinctions about who to send > instructors to based on some institutions' abilities to pay or not pay > as the case may be (admin fees are another matter, but I don't have > strong opinions on that). I don't generally care what the institution > is--if there are scientists who need to improve their computing skills > I want to help them, so that they can do better science. > >> 3. I take Stephen's point about having a lot more companies knock on our >> door if word gets out that we can provide high-quality training at low cost, >> but I actually think that's a good thing. Many of our instructors are >> considering careers outside academia, and I'd be pleased if we could help >> them make connections. > > Yes! This^^^ > Best, > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
