On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 08:43:08PM +0000, Matt Davis wrote: > We’ve decided to run a pilot program encompassing five corporate > workshops so we can learn more about working with corporations. > … > At the end of the pilot program the Steering Committee will consider > whether to continue doing workshops for for-profit entities, taking > into account such factors as whether the instructors, coordinators, > and students involved had positive experiences, and whether there > seems likely to be continued interest from corporations. The > Steering Committee may also elect to change the terms under which > corporate workshops are provided.
To avoid plugging the pipe after five workshops, I'd make it explicit that the pilot terms will continue to apply to additional cooperate workshops while the committee and wider community discuss how the initial five went. Maybe this is what “encompassing” is intended to imply, but I think wording like: After five cooperate workshops, the Steering Committee will consider whether to continue… and then at the end of that paragraph: Until the Steering Committee changes or removes the terms for corporate workshops, coperations can continue to schedule and run additional workshops under the pilot terms. The pilot terms seem reasonable enough to use during the discussion period (just like we grandfathered in the Monsanto workshop under the pre-pilot terms). On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:48:13PM +0000, Barraclough, Dominic wrote: > In fact, a company may avoid SC in favor of a more expensive > commercial training provider on the grounds that, since SC relies on > volunteers, it cannot be trusted to provide training or support when > the company wants it. If they'd rather pay more to ensure reliable support, I imagine the steering committee would be happy to work out a deal ;). Looking over our membership options, it seems like they all follow a template like: * Member organization: * Employs instructors * Coordinates workshops * Provides admin staff time * In return, the SCF * Opens a slot on the Advisory Council * Opens slots in instructor training courses * Publicizes some member activities Maybe there's room for another membership position for institutions that don't want to get involved in teaching or coordinating, and only want to consume our usual workshops. That's a bit dicey as it stands, because you can't guarantee that you'll successfully organize a workshop with volunteer instructors. I'm not sure how Partners and Affiliates handle this uncertainty, but I'd guess they just trust that they'll find willing instructors (I don't know what fraction of potential workshops fall through on this issue). Still, if companies are willing to put some money down to get a guarantee, I expect contracting instructors from the usual volunteer pool will work pretty well (and you have easy access to fallback instructors if your contracted instructor has to bail out). Personally, I'd be happy to sell time for running an in-person workshop followed by remote, on-call support. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
