thank you for your comprehensive email, Joan. this all reasonable good to me
On Thu 13. Jun 2019 at 19:49, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone, I'm in transit and I'm officially out until Monday, but > wanted to respect Gris's request for feedback by the end of today. > > (FYI: My email is being authored offline, and I have no emails newer > than ~06-12 18:00 EDT. I'm sending to dev@, and have set Reply-To to > dev@, because it's important we discuss this as much as possible in > public.) > > CC'ing Greg Stein and David Nalley for Infra questions. > > > # Summary > > * I support the initiative overall. > * I support the Outreachy budget item (Option 1) as seed money, but > * I think external funding for interns should be the goal (Option 2). > * Pick the right *tech focused*, externally useful project. I propose > PonyMail. > * This budget line-item should be extended to cover any paid Infra > staff's mentoring effort (see below for details, estimate 5h/week) > because Infra won't have budgeted for this additional load we'd be > asking of them. > * My other ASF responsibilities mean I probably cannot be Outreachy's > main champion for FY2020, sorry, but happy to help as much as I can. > * Sorry for the length of this email. I tried hard to make it shorter :( > > > # On Outreachy > > As I understand it, Outreachy's focus is getting individuals in > under-represented groups who are economically unable to sustain > themselves both the funding and the support they need so they can > successfully volunteer their time in open source development, with a > core focus on *coding*. > > One of Outreachy's most notable achievements, which took many years to > achieve, was working out how to help get inexperienced devs successful > in contributing to the Linux kernel. They're really successful in this! > They built a lot of supports around that process that thankfully the ASF > shouldn't need - in fact, they require applicants to prove their > suitability through a kind of gauntlet - but this is the type of "big > profile" engagement that we should be aiming for when we propose to them. > > Remember: just because we want to work with Outreachy doesn't mean > they'll agree to work with us, if it doesn't look like a good fit. We > get interviewed, too. :) > > > # So what project or projects make sense? > > I also like Niall's suggestion of 2x interns in FY2020, one in each of > the two cohorts. > > We need a crisp, technical-first opportunity. Since D&I hasn't started > to liaise with ASF Project PMCs yet (beyond those represented these > lists), I agree the first FY20 cohort (August 2019) would be a trial > run, using a central ASF-wide project. D&I has a clearer mandate here, > and it'll be easier to liaise with central groups. That leaves us > sufficient time to get 1 or more non-central projects engaged for the > Late January 2020 cohort. > > We have a lot of "cobbler's children have no shoes" projects at the ASF, > and I'd love more bodies on them (especially anything that makes PMC's > lives easier when interfacing with Infra, the Board, or [email protected]), > but Outreachy is about putting the needs of the *intern* first, *not* > our needs. They'd probably reject work on Whimsy on these grounds, in my > opinion. > > We need to consider that this individual likely won't be an ASF > contributor or committer yet, either, so a project that has strong value > outside the ASF as well would be best. > > Also, while there is room for documentation projects, website redesigns, > training materials and so on, I'd argue that these aren't the best > opportunities for an Outreachy intern. All too often it's precisely this > "work no one else wants to do" that falls to under-represented > individuals. It'll look especially bad if our first attempt at a > diversity initiative comes off as throwing undesirable work "over the > wall" to a minority intern. (It'd be even worse if it also looked like > we were asking them to do diversity-focused work...no one's proposed > this, just saying.) > > Things that touch the most people possible, AND have external-to-Apache > users would be the best opportunities. I think PonyMail might be the > best central project here. Can anyone think of others? > > > # On Mentoring > > Reminder: if we're picking a project primarily supported and run by > Infra staff like PonyMail, many of these are ASF-paid people. Their > hours are already allocated and tracked by Infra management for the huge > number of things we ask of them. (Read as: they're already overworked > and underpaid.) > > Assuming at least the first intern would be working on e.g. PonyMail, > let's budget for an additional 5h/week for Infra staff to cover the > expected mentoring duties. This shows respect to Infra for their time > and effort, even if this just ends up looking on the books like > Department A paying Department B. > > This whole proposal is still contingent on Infra agreeing to work > together on this. No one wants to be "volun-told." That, too, would look > really bad (on D&I, not the ASF at large). > > So, Greg/David (on CC): How does this sound to you? If positive (even if > PonyMail isn't exactly the right project), is this 5h/week a number you > can help Gris calculate to include in the line item? Remember, we don't > have to spend the money if it doesn't work out. > > > # On the ASF funding question > > No matter how clearly we state that Outreachy grants allow someone to > contribute voluntarily when they do not otherwise have the economic > means to do so, there will be a vocal group who will see this as "money > for code," and who won't easily be convinced of the subtlety here - even > if we're legally in the right. I agree that would be a bad precedent to > set, and might even endanger our non-profit status. > > (I also don't know if there is precedent of the ASF giving money to > another US-registered non-profit as a social or charitable initiative - > anyone know?) > > This is why I prefer Option 2 for the intern funding piece (Infra staff > mentoring time notwithstanding). If we go with Option 1 - which I also > support - I expect we'll need to be very, very explicit that this is > seed money for a trial run only, and that, if successful, future year > D&I/Outreachy intern funding would only come via coordination with > Fundraising. It would also give us a year to experiment and come up with > the right process to make it easy for our 300+ projects to engage with a > sponsor, Outreachy, D&I, and Fundraising for success. > > One footnote: if the central efforts with Infra work out well, I could > see future years continuing to fund Outreachy interns at the > Foundation-level. I would hope that D&I would work with the Board and > other Committees to ensure the right initiatives are chosen. > > > -Joan > > > > On 2019-06-12 2:16 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote: > > I like Niall's idea of trying out with 2 interns. The website states that > > the cost is $5,500 per intern and $500 for travel. > > > > Outreachy's website [1] has a good description of the format, program > etc. > > > > I don't have details in what the interns will do, my guess is that they > > will work on similar tasks than the GSoC folks? Maybe folks who have done > > the program can share more info? > > > > A champion would be the project owner, who ensures we execute on the > budget > > request and program. > > > > [1] Outreachy.org > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:57 PM Niall Pemberton <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51, Bertrand Delacretaz < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:21 AM Griselda Cuevas <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> ...Please vote on wether you support Outreachy as a project this year > >>> and what option you'd prefer we follow re:budget request... > >>> > >>> Considering the lack of time, best might be to ask for the $30k budget > >>> with the understanding that we're not sure yet if we'll use it. > >> > >> > >> There are two rounds of internship each year. The next “Pre Application” > >> period is late August 2019. Will we be ready with a co-ordinator, > projects > >> willing to take part & mentors by then? If not the next period starts in > >> Late January 2020. The minimum commitment required is funding for one > >> intern @ $6,500 and it could well work out that Outreachy will be able > to > >> connect interns with Sponsors for funding. There’s still the question of > >> how we will setup long term with Sponsors so that the ASF isn’t paying > for > >> interns. I would suggest that this year is seen as a trial run and just > ask > >> for $13,000 for 2 interns (one in each period) with the understanding > that > >> this is just seed money to allow us to participate and may not be spent > if > >> Outreachy can hook up Sponsors. We’ll learn lessons this year and if a > >> solution can be found for funnelling sponsors direct to Outreachy then > >> hopefully it will be self funding pretty quickly. > >> > >> Niall > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> This would give us time to better define the project and needs. > >>> > >>> -Bertrand > >>> > >> > > >
