Re: [boost] GNOME outreachy

Subject: Re: [boost] GNOME outreachy
From: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash (brycelelbach_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-25 23:37:39

My point was simply that there would have been a better way to say what you
had in mind.

Niall Douglas wrote:
> I don't get how diversity is improved by excluding anyone who isn't a US
resident. Or any of the other groups Outreachy excludes.

It brings more people into the community, from demographic groups that are
historically underrepresented. I do agree that it is unfortunate that the
program is not available to non-US residents. But the program is not
exclusive: it doesn't stop us from running other programs, like BSoC.

P.S. For what it's worth, while we have a difference of opinion, and I
think you are wrong here, I of course respect your opinion and your right
to voice it, and always consider you a friend.

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 1:52 PM Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> > But diversity is important enough to me that I will happily find the
> > time to administer a Boost outreachy
>
> I don't get how diversity is improved by excluding anyone who isn't a US
> resident. Or any of the other groups Outreachy excludes.
>
> > Do you realize that outreachy is a project of the Software Freedom
> > Conservancy?
>
> More than aware. Outreachy was originally pitched at Boost a few years
> back by employees of the SFC. They pushed it hard at the time, too.
>
> > The same Software Freedom Conservancy that has graciously and expertly
> > managed the finances and legal matters for the Boost organization?
>
> They did nothing graciously. They get paid 10% of everything we earn,
> which is many thousands of dollars per year.
>
> > Do you realize that the hard-working people from the Software Freedom
> > Conservancy, who help sustain Boost, are probably on this list?
>
> Of course. I am sure they have not forgotten any of my past interactions
> with them. Most of which are on the public record, in any case.
>
> The Software Freedom Conservancy provides administrative services for
> Boost, for which we pay them substantial fees. Administrative services
> are uncontroversial, either they get done, or don't, to some level of
> quality or other.
>
> I find it unfortunate that many of those who operate the SFC have used
> the SFC, which has only the remit to provide administrative services for
> open source orgs, and that remit alone, to act as a platform and launch
> pad and soapbox for non-administrative, non-engineering, and definitely
> non-C++ advocation of part of the US culture wars, which quite literally
> are nonsensical to most of the rest of the world.
>
> In my opinion, they should be politely be refused any purchase in that
> regard. I also think they should desist from using the SFC in that way,
> it feels improper, but that's up to them.
>
> > You basically just called some very hard-working and dedicated
> > contributors to Boost criminals>
> > It doesn't matter what your opinion of Outreachy is. I think you should
> > show some respect to the people who run it, because they have done more
> > to keep the Boost community going than either you or I.
> >
> > In the future, choose your words more carefully.
>
> I don't get why you'd suggest any of that. I chose my words accurately
> and carefully.
>
> You know as well as I do that criminality is based on jurisdiction. What
> is illegal in one place may not be in another. Outreachy does not
> operate outside the US. Therefore only US law applies to their
> behaviour, and US law permits "reverse" discrimination.
>
> It doesn't make what they're doing morally right, or anything Boost
> should involve itself in. There are far better ways of improving
> diversity than what they're doing. Some of the other threads in this
> topic have good ideas not requiring blatent discrimination.
>
> Niall
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>