Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #11467 > unrolled thread

Outreachy favouritism and wasted Debian money

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Outreachy favouritism and wasted Debian money Ken Starr <kenstarr@protonmail.com> - 2020-02-19 21:00 +0100
    Re: Outreachy favouritism and wasted Debian money Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> - 2020-02-21 14:40 +0100
      Outreachy and smearing campaign Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2020-02-21 16:40 +0100
        Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign Ken Starr <kenstarr@protonmail.com> - 2020-02-21 17:10 +0100
          Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2020-02-21 17:40 +0100
          Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2020-02-22 10:40 +0100
            Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign Ken Starr <kenstarr@protonmail.com> - 2020-02-22 12:40 +0100
            Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2020-02-22 14:40 +0100
              Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign Ken Starr <kenstarr@protonmail.com> - 2020-02-22 17:40 +0100
        Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> - 2020-02-22 15:20 +0100

#11467 — Outreachy favouritism and wasted Debian money

People tried to hush up the outreachy issue but it is now time before Debian wastes more money in another foolish round.

We have a woman in Outreachy who already did a lot for Debian, doing the Debian booth at FOSDEM 2018, organising a miniDebConf in Tirana 2018 and organizing Balkans biggest event, OSCAL, five years in a row.  The woman is a founder of the group behind OSCAL, Open Labs.

We were told Outreachy money is being spent to attract women to free software but here we have a woman who was already heavily involved for years.  She came to DebConf19 in Brazil and immediately after she is awarded an Outreachy.  Other women wonder if there is favouritism, so they should.

What a scandal, a woman with this level of commitment is relegated to the sub-standard employment terms of an outreachy contract and nobody gave her a real job.

How many outreachy women continue to do stuff as volunteers, the Debian way, after Outreachy? None.

How many ever made a package?

How many support their work after outreachy?

We fully support spending money on diversity but not with results like these.  Sever ties with outreachy and find another way to spend the outreachy money in 2020.

Long live diversity!



Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11500

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:51 AM Ken Starr <kenstarr@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> We fully support spending money on diversity but not with results like these.  Sever ties with outreachy and find another way to spend the outreachy money in 2020.
>

I'm not quite sure about other parts of this email, but I understand
that outreachy for Debian itself might have already served its
original purpose as an experiment of attracting more diversity.

Because people's interests are always changing, it appears that Debian
people are less motivated to work on organizing and mentoring paid new
comers nowadays than a decade before, this includes GSoC which does
not cost Debian money. So it would be a good thing to evaluate whether
we consider a longer term commitment to outreachy is profitable and
desirable, or we find the gap between expectation and reality suggests
something else.


Best regards,
Aron

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11501 — Outreachy and smearing campaign

Hi!

On 21.02.20 14:33, Aron Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:51 AM Ken Starr <kenstarr@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We fully support spending money on diversity but not with results like these.  Sever ties with outreachy and find another way to spend the outreachy money in 2020.

The above quotes email is another example of the ongoing smearing
campaign against Debian, so I have not replied to it previously.
However, I feel I need to reply to this now:

> I'm not quite sure about other parts of this email, but I understand
> that outreachy for Debian itself might have already served its
> original purpose as an experiment of attracting more diversity.

It was hopefully not just an experiment.

> Because people's interests are always changing, it appears that Debian
> people are less motivated to work on organizing and mentoring paid new
> comers nowadays than a decade before, this includes GSoC which does
> not cost Debian money. So it would be a good thing to evaluate whether
> we consider a longer term commitment to outreachy is profitable and
> desirable, or we find the gap between expectation and reality suggests
> something else.
If you, Aron, feel the need to properly discuss Outreachy's benefits for
Debian, I propose to do that not over a mailing list, but in a BoF at
whichever DebConf, together with the people who actually take care of
Outreachy and GSoC, as well as with the Debian Diversity and (remains
of) the Debian Women team.

Oh, and to finish with, I know several Outreachy interns who still
contribute to Debian - I am one of them.

Ulrike

Please do not feed more trolls here. Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11502 — Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, February 21, 2020 3:14 PM, Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On 21.02.20 14:33, Aron Xu wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:51 AM Ken Starr kenstarr@protonmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > We fully support spending money on diversity but not with results like these. Sever ties with outreachy and find another way to spend the outreachy money in 2020.
>
> The above quotes email is another example of the ongoing smearing
> campaign against Debian, so I have not replied to it previously.
<snip>
>
> Please do not feed more trolls here. Thank you.

Everything in this email is known and verifiable fact

Debian spends $25,000 every year on just four women

The constitution says Debian is a voluntary organization.  Paying these women is a violation of that core principle.

If people ask questions about that money or anything else you want to avoid, why do you call it smearing and trolling?

Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11504 — Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 04:09:20PM +0000, Ken Starr wrote:
> On Friday, February 21, 2020 3:14 PM, Wise Person wrote:
> > Please do not feed more trolls here. Thank you.
> 
> Everything in this email is known and verifiable fact


Ken,


Messages like

} } Please do not feed more trolls here. Thank you.

should be recieved as "Enough, go do something constructive"



Regards
Geert Stappers
-- 
Silence is hard to parse

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11505 — Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign

Hi,

On 21.02.20 17:09, Ken Starr wrote:

> Debian spends $25,000 every year on just four women

This is entirely wrong as far as I can tell:

Outreachy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit under their parent organization,
Software Freedom Conservancy. Outreachy internship stipends, travel
fund, and program costs are supported by donors. Debian itself does not
pay any intern.

Furthermore, Outreachy is open to all "people from groups
underrepresented in tech".

- ulrike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11506 — Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 22, 2020 9:15 AM, Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 21.02.20 17:09, Ken Starr wrote:
>
> > Debian spends $25,000 every year on just four women
>
> This is entirely wrong as far as I can tell:
>
> Outreachy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit under their parent organization,
> Software Freedom Conservancy. Outreachy internship stipends, travel
> fund, and program costs are supported by donors. Debian itself does not
> pay any intern.

When people donate money to Debian, it goes into SPI and other bank accounts.  There is no Debian bank account, as you say, Debian itself does not pay any intern nor does it pay anything else.

The Debian money is transferred from the SPI bank account to the Outreachy bank account directly.

People give this money to SPI because of the great work that all Debian volunteers are doing.  SPI and Outreachy both take commissions for handling this money.  The remainder goes to maybe 2 or 3 interns each round.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11508 — Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign

On 22.02.20 10:15, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21.02.20 17:09, Ken Starr wrote:
>
>> Debian spends $25,000 every year on just four women
> This is entirely wrong as far as I can tell:
>
> Outreachy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit under their parent organization,
> Software Freedom Conservancy. Outreachy internship stipends, travel
> fund, and program costs are supported by donors. Debian itself does not
> pay any intern.
>
> Furthermore, Outreachy is open to all "people from groups
> underrepresented in tech".
>
Thank you for this reply, Ulrike. Debian spending money to support
Outreachy would not be completely inconceivable. As a DD I have full
(very close to ultimate) trust that I would not have missed a discussion
about it. But as a regular user of Debian project?

No idea what this "Ken Starr" (name chosen after
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Starr ?) is after. At best we are the
subject of a study on how well defamation campaigns work in
ideals-driven tech environments. @Ken, pump it up! Something evil in me
is enjoying this. Much like skimming through the tabloids when all you
wanted to do is to go and fetch some fruit from the supermarket.

@Debian, we should find ways to objectively discuss what has been
brought up. For instance - Ken reporting on someone attending DebConf,
finding a mentor and jointly sketching a project they want to work
together - I mean, that is why we have DebConf in the first place -
@Ken, this is a success story. I am not sure if Outreachy then needs to
fund this any further, but from a Debian perspective - please do. Don't
we have someone in our midst to dissect truths in Ken's rants from
fictions? And maybe to even admit when something went wrong?

Steffen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11512 — Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 22, 2020 1:31 PM, Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> wrote:

> @Debian, we should find ways to objectively discuss what has been
> brought up. For instance - Ken reporting on someone attending DebConf,
> finding a mentor and jointly sketching a project they want to work
> together - I mean, that is why we have DebConf in the first place -
> @Ken, this is a success story. I am not sure if Outreachy then needs to
> fund this any further, but from a Debian perspective - please do.


An Outreachy who was privileged to be in that discussion at DebConf has an unfair advantage over other candidates.

That is contrary to the values Outreachy claims to promote a level playing field.

Women suffer from these disadvantages and lack of networks.  Outreachy promised to provide a fix for that.  Debian has short-circuited the process.  If posts are designed that way the Outreachy is redundant.

Nobody is claiming the woman did something bad.  The candidates are not expected to understand everything about the integrity of this process.  That is the mentors job.  It must be the men.  It's always the men and their money.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11509 — Re: Outreachy and smearing campaign

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:15 PM Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 21.02.20 14:33, Aron Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:51 AM Ken Starr <kenstarr@protonmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> We fully support spending money on diversity but not with results like these.  Sever ties with outreachy and find another way to spend the outreachy money in 2020.
>
> The above quotes email is another example of the ongoing smearing
> campaign against Debian, so I have not replied to it previously.
> However, I feel I need to reply to this now:
>

I understand Debian is sufferring a lot smearing campains but I think
this is kind of over reacting. We don't need to take an arbitery
challenging opinion as smearing campaign. It could become a good thing
if misunderstandings are clarified properly while discussion remains
clam.

> > I'm not quite sure about other parts of this email, but I understand
> > that outreachy for Debian itself might have already served its
> > original purpose as an experiment of attracting more diversity.
>
> It was hopefully not just an experiment.
>

It depends on how you interpret, I would regard it as a social
experiment in open source and free software community.

> > Because people's interests are always changing, it appears that Debian
> > people are less motivated to work on organizing and mentoring paid new
> > comers nowadays than a decade before, this includes GSoC which does
> > not cost Debian money. So it would be a good thing to evaluate whether
> > we consider a longer term commitment to outreachy is profitable and
> > desirable, or we find the gap between expectation and reality suggests
> > something else.
> If you, Aron, feel the need to properly discuss Outreachy's benefits for
> Debian, I propose to do that not over a mailing list, but in a BoF at
> whichever DebConf, together with the people who actually take care of
> Outreachy and GSoC, as well as with the Debian Diversity and (remains
> of) the Debian Women team.
>

I have prior experience with GSoC and I know we are transparent on the
whole process, there's no need to try to keep this kind of discussion
offline, if the question is already raised publicly and the discussion
remain reasonable.

> Oh, and to finish with, I know several Outreachy interns who still
> contribute to Debian - I am one of them.
>

It's great and thanks for your work. I want to clarify that I didn't
suggest that no intern has continued to contribute to Debian for
extended time, in contrast to what you might understand.

> Ulrike
>
> Please do not feed more trolls here. Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web