On Sun 08 Mar, Martin Bähr wrote: > Excerpts from Aaron O'Leary's message of 2015-03-08 10:43:47 +0100: > > Volunteering is bad, for the same reason that unpaid internships are > > bad: access is limited to those who can afford the time to participate. > > Volunteering is socially exlusive. > > woha, that is a strong statement! > unpaid internships in a business and volunteering for a good cause are > entirely different things.
Sorry, that's what I tried to qualify in my next paragraph. To clarify: in volunteering the ends often do justify the means. I believe in the cause of SWC, but I don't believe that should extend to Monsanto. Volunteering is exclusive and this becomes a problem when the act of volunteering is the means of access to jobs or power structures. Personally I do volunteer elsewhere, for things that I believe do a social good and in organisations that are self aware of who is actually able to volunteer for them. > > Overall I think this is ok, whilst we are empowering people and > > bootstrapping our community. > > are you saying that as soon as swc can afford it, all trainers should > be paid? and is training monsanto scientists not empowering them? Should SWC eventually pay trainers? Maybe. It depends on where SWC heads in the future. What if it replaced all internal training in universities and became an integral part of the system? This is a bit hypothetical though and I see the bootstrapping phase lasting quite a while. As for the Monsanto employees - you empower them but what about the community? > Free training only for those who publish their research in open-access > journals and make the code accessible under a Free Software or Open > Source license. :) I could work with that. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
