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 been targeting a different audience that would eventually start paying for commercial services. We may also have been volunteering to help people for free that would otherwise have paid a professional bike mechanic. On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Michael Selik <m...@selik.org> wrote: > 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 to gain more in productivity (and thus wages) > than they lose to other economic forces. It's hard to know. > > As I understand it, the existence of Software Carpentry as a > non-profit, mostly-volunteer organization stems from the inadequate > public funding allocated to scientific research, exacerbated by the > awkward structure of higher education and unfortunate circumstances of > graduate students. I'd be frustrated if Software Carpentry shifted > from trying to alleviate this pain to instead exploiting one group > (mostly academics) for the benefit of another (industry scientists and > their employers). > > The morality of volunteering for corporations is comparable to the > intersection between the creators and users of open-source training. > How many volunteers will benefit economically? How many scientists > will face lower wages because some of their peers choose to volunteer? > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Greg Wilson >> <gvwil...@software-carpentry.org> wrote: >>> 2. Other people have said that corporations should be charged market rates. >>> I'm all in favor of bringing in more money (after all, that's what pays my >>> salary) but what about Harvard? They're sitting on a $29 billion endowment >>> - should we charge them what we charge the Fortune 500? How about small >>> companies: do we ask a start-up less than we ask Monsanto? We've already >>> started down this road by not charging admin fees for workshops in less >>> affluent countries; should the subcommittee that the executive is putting >>> together to regularize fee waivers look at charging market rates for >>> companies, affluent institutions, or some other group? >> >> Late to this discussion, so sorry if I'm just rehashing/adding to the >> noise. But I would like to second this. Individual instructors are >> of course free to do whatever they feel like, but I would not feel >> comfortable if SWC were making distinctions about who to send >> instructors to based on some institutions' abilities to pay or not pay >> as the case may be (admin fees are another matter, but I don't have >> strong opinions on that). I don't generally care what the institution >> is--if there are scientists who need to improve their computing skills >> I want to help them, so that they can do better science. >> >>> 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 careers outside academia, and I'd be pleased if we could help >>> them make connections. >> >> Yes! This^^^ >> Best, >> Erik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.software-carpentry.org >> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.software-carpentry.org http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
