From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578981F404 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 19:42:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725836AbeH3XqM (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2018 19:46:12 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:34490 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727337AbeH3XqL (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2018 19:46:11 -0400 Received: (qmail 7993 invoked by uid 109); 30 Aug 2018 19:42:26 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 19:42:26 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 30772 invoked by uid 111); 30 Aug 2018 19:42:34 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:42:34 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:42:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:42:24 -0400 From: Jeff King To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder Subject: Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar? Message-ID: <20180830194223.GD19685@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20180828151419.GA17467@sigill.intra.peff.net> <8736uxe2pm.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20180830031607.GB665@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87sh2wcak4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87sh2wcak4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > It doesn't need to be. As far as I know, the main reasons (from the > > perspective of a project) to do it through Outreachy are: > > > > - being part of a larger program generates attention and gets the > > interest of intern candidates (free advertising, if you will) > > I was wondering if we couldn't do it through Outreachy *and* also do our > own advertisements / possibly recruit candidates outside of the > Outreachy pool. In that case we'd still get the attention/outreach > benefits, in addition to our own... True. I'd worry about spreading our mentor resources too thinly (which I think are probably a bigger bottleneck than actual money). But I guess you're proposing to issue a larger call for candidates, and then we pick from the result (so in the end we'd end up with the same number of actual interns, just from a bigger pool). > Yup, but just as a clarifying point here wouldn't the participants also > get all the same benefits of this in the case of Outreachy+OurOwnProgram > if we ran OurOwnProgram concurrently to Outreachy? > > I.e. I was assuming that once candidates are "handed off" to a project > they're communicating within that project (possibly with other > candidates), and Outreachy is no longer very involved (except maybe for > progress reports / final report, but wouldn't we also do that for a > OurOwnProgram?). > > I may have that completely wrong though, which is why I'm asking, which > b.t.w. I'm doing mostly just to get an idea of how what Outreachy's role > is in this exactly, not to strongly advocate for a OurOwnProgram. I think there _is_ some contact and group resources between Outreachy and the interns. But I'm actually not sure of the extent. I know they encouraged interns to blog (and read each other's blogs). I don't know if there's an intern mailing list, irc, etc. I had the impression that there is, but I don't actually know the details. > > - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups > > (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't > > actually care about that, then it's just a complication) > > I'm fine with doing selection discrimination of under-represented groups > through such a program. Particularly if, as you mention, there's > earmarked funding for it which otherwise might not be available, so it's > not zero-sum when it comes to a hypothetical alternative of casting a > wider net of our own (and as you mention, that would be more work). Yeah, just for reference, my "you" there was a hypothetical "one might or might not care about...", not responding to your particular email. > I do think it's unfortunate that the selection criteria for the program > privileges U.S. citizens and U.S. residents above other people, > particularly since they're also accepting worldwide candidates (and > we've had at least one non-American participant that I know about), so > it's not e.g. for U.S. administrative or tax reasons as one might expect > if they only accepted Americans. I assume you mean this bit from the eligibility rules: You must meet one of the following criteria: - You live any where in the world and you identify as a woman (cis or trans), trans man, or genderqueer person (including genderfluid or genderfree). - You live in the United States or you are a U.S. national or permanent resident living abroad, AND you are a person of any gender who is Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander So there are more categories for the US, but I think that is largely because under-representation is somewhat regional. Being black in the US is different than being black in Africa. Certainly one could argue that Africa as a whole is under-represented in the tech world, but I think you'd probably need to draw different boundaries in different places if you want to extend opportunities to those who are least likely to already have them. I don't know what those groupings would look like in, say, Europe. If you're suggesting that the program would be better off having region-specific rules for more regions, I'd certainly agree with that. I don't know if it's something the Outreachy folks have considered or discussed; it might be worth bringing it up. -Peff