On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:34 PM Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 4:08 AM Pearu Peterson <pearu.peter...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> See GH discussion starting at >> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/18454#discussion_r579967791 for the >> raised issue that is now moved here. >> >> Re "Compensating fairly" section: >> >> The NEP proposes location-dependent contracts for fair pays. >> >> I think this is a contradictory approach as location is not the only >> factor that may influence fairness. As an example, contractors may have >> different levels of obligations to their families, and one might argue this >> should be taken into consideration as well because the family size and the >> required level of commitment to the family members (kids, members who need >> special care, etc) can have a huge influence on the contractors living >> standards, not just the level of average rent in the particular location. >> It would be unfair to take into account location but not the family >> situation. There may be other factors as well that may influence fairness >> and I think this will make the decision-making about contracting harder >> and, most importantly, controversial. >> >> My proposal is that factors like location, family situation, etc should >> be discarded when negotiating contract terms. The efficiency of using the >> project funding should be defined by how well and quickly a particular >> contractor is able to get the job done, but not how the contractors are >> likely to spend their pays - it is nobody's business, IMHO, and is likely >> very hard if not impossible to verify. >> > > One difference is that it is illegal (at least under US law) to consider > factors such as family situation in determining pay. > > However, it is both legal and standard to consider location. I'm not > saying we should necessarily do it, but it's an accepted practice. NumPy > development is global, but prevailing wages are not. > Regarding location, that's clearly one of the most complicated things to deal with. Aside from legality, it's indeed because it's standard practice that we have to deal with it. The NEP text explains why both doing what's standard and a completely location-independent approach are considered unfair. If I'd have to choose between those two, I'd agree that location-independent compensation is *less unfair*. It would however either make it impossible to contract with people in expensive locations, or use compensation levels that are up to 10x higher than the norm for other locations. > "The efficiency of using the project funding ...." This is exactly the contradiction. We don't just want to get the most for our money. That's the usual corporate approach: pay as little as you can get away with. And it would lead to very strong location-dependent choices. The proposed approach is: first figure out what we want to fund. Then look for a great candidate. Taking into account the factors listed, like if someone is already a part of the team and has the required skills. And after that's settled, determine a fair compensation level. This ordering may not be as clear as it should be in the current text, I'll try to make it more explicit. Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
