Hi all,
I realise I'm very late to the party here but I've been following the
discussion and I wanted to add one option which I don't think has been explored
yet.
First off, an opinion. I don't think SWC should provide volunteer workshops to
organisations that are not demonstrably involved in
Wouldn't that Department of Labor rule apply to universities/departments as
well?
Dr. David R. Pugh
Post-doctoral research fellow
INET Oxford
Mathematical Institute
Oxford University
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 4:03 PM, John Blischak jdblisc...@uchicago.edu
wrote:
Thanks everyone for an interesting
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
On Fri 06 Mar, Matt Davis wrote:
I've been advocating off-list that we do charge corporations more for
workshops than we charge universities, and I think this is another good
reason to do that. (While still asking our instructors to be
volunteers--the additional money would all go to SWC.)
I
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
This also makes me think of my old volunteer bicycle repair club. We
salvaged abandoned bikes and sold them for $50 or $100, just to pay
for parts and to increase the chance we were giving the bike to a good
owner. We also offered free repair help.
Local bike shops had mixed feelings. We may have
My opinion (an and only my opinion) now is that there has been significant
discussion on this topic. I would argue that to spare everyone's inbox, it's
now the board's responsibility to react with proposals that are sensitive to
the dialogue.
The board has been meeting weekly (until this week)
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
Just a note on terminology (sorry, I have OCD) before it all gets confused.
To clarify, does the suggestion not-for-profit don't pay mean they
pay only admin fee not the market rate? And for-profit pay the
market (well, whatever SCF will decide it to be) rate?
This would solve (?) the
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all your comments - it appears that there are three issues in
various stages of crystallization:
1. Should we decline to work with some organizations because we don't
like their methods or aims? The consensus seems to be to let individual
instructors decide so long
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Ethan White et...@weecology.org wrote:
1. I agree with Greg and others that, in general, choosing not to
participate in workshops at certain locations due to ethical concerns
should primarily be the choice of individual instructors regarding
whether
they want to
Aleksandra, you exactly captured what I meant. =) Thanks for clarifying!
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Aleksandra Pawlik
a.paw...@software.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
Just a note on terminology (sorry, I have OCD) before it all gets confused.
To clarify, does the suggestion not-for-profit don't pay
This is not generally true of faculty in the US, as far as I know - at least
I've never heard of it. :) There are various rules in place to keep me from
selling credits without my university's cut, but I can consult on whatever
I want up to some limit of # of hours consonant with my day job.
Hi,
Just a note on terminology (sorry, I have OCD) before it all gets confused.
To clarify, does the suggestion not-for-profit don't pay mean they
pay only admin fee not the market rate? And for-profit pay the
market (well, whatever SCF will decide it to be) rate?
This would solve (?) the issue
SWC is non-profit itself and the fees asked were, in the past, made as
donations. Why not letting everybody just paying the regular fees while
making feel not non-profit organization they should give SWC a donation,
hoping it will be commensurate to the size of the profitable organization
hosting
I'll second the apprehension about providing free labor to corporations who can
very easily pay for it. And I wouldn't blow this off as a one-off thing, a
let's just do it this time and figure it out later if it becomes a problem
-kind of thing. When word gets out that we're providing training
This is the first time I've noticed one of the workshops for a billion
dollar corporation. What is SWC's policy on providing volunteer labor for
corporations? I can get behind helping grad students at universities for
free, but this seems very different. Corporate training is big money. For
I agree, a discussion is definitely warranted.
Iterating off of Jason's e-mail: many services offer academic and corporate
pricing tiers. This could be something we do?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Turner, Stephen D. (sdt5z)
sd...@virginia.edu wrote:
I'll second the apprehension
I emailed Greg privately in response to this. Here it is:
Hi Greg,
I just want to register that something about this doesn't sit right with me.
I'm not sure whether it is because of Monsanto's poor ethical record
or because they are a huge multi-national, but my instinct is that
they (and other
Hi everyone,
A couple of people have mailed me about this directly as well, so here's
my thinking:
1. Some people have objected because they dislike Monsanto's business
practices and/or GMOs in general. However, we have instructors who
won't teach at the US national labs because of their
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 02:35:24PM -0500, Greg Wilson wrote:
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
