Should processing/p5js reconsider its participation in Google Summer of Code (GSOC)

[dhowe]

(Probably not the ideal place for this, but the issue seems worthy of a an archived discussion)

Three groups focused on increasing diversity in artificial intelligence say they will no longer take funding from Google. In a joint statement released Monday, Black in AI, Queer in AI, and Widening NLP said they acted to protest Google’s treatment of its former ethical AI team leaders Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell, as well as former recruiter April Christina Curley, a Black queer woman...

In the statement, the groups endorse calls made in March by current and former Google employees for academic conferences to reject Google funding and for policymakers to enact stronger whistleblower protections for AI researchers.

https://www.wired.com/story/black-queer-ai-groups-spurn-google-funding

[outofambit]

hi @dhowe thanks for starting this discussion! i hadn't seen this part of the story around google's firing of it's ethical ai team. its an important thing for us to consider (and be transparent about in the process).

my initial thoughts are: i don't think we should withdraw from google summer of code (or season of docs) this year, primarily because we've already begun making commitments to mentors and participants and i don't want us to break those commitments. i'll also share more thoughts later about a longer term approach to google funding (after i've had some more time to think). would love to hear from others in the meantime!

[dhowe]

thanks @outofambit didn't mean to suggest pulling out this year, but I do think Google's long history of problematic behavior regarding issues of access, diversity, privacy, etc. should be carefully considered by the community before we engage in future programs or funding (the real test of commitment is when actual $ is on the line)

to be clear, this is not specific to Google - all sponsors, I would argue, should be similarly examined

[stalgiag]

I have strong opinions about that entity just as I have strong opinions about the entity that owns the platform we are discussing this on or the platform used to store data uploaded to the online editor. As an ex-mentee and mentor for four years now, I feel that the participants (the 'students') receive the most from GSoC and I don't feel that withdrawing would be effective political action. I would feel that we were taking opportunities away from those students rather than meaningfully reconsidering the various tangled complicities in this project's funding.

[dhowe]

Thanks @stalgiag, there would certainly be negatives if we were to pull out of GSOC or similar programs. On the other hand it seems clear there is some behavior far enough out of sync with the goals and values of the community that we'd no longer want to associate with a sponsor, regardless of the benefits (as the organizations mentioned above appear to have decided). So I'm only arguing that we should start to think together about these questions (perhaps in the direction of a transparent policy), as they are unlikely to go away anytime soon.

ps. were there other directions you had in mind re: more 'meaningfully reconsidering the various tangled complicities in this project's funding' ?

[stalgiag]

Thanks @dhowe! I totally agree with the proposal of moving these kinds of decisions towards transparency and community intention. I have never really been involved in choosing associations but it would be nice if there was an accessible accounting process for these connections, the entities involved, the cost-benefit for the community etc. These lines become very difficult to articulate at times (no ethical consumption under late capital & all) but I still think that the principles of 'open' and 'community-led' could be applied to this aspect of the project.

As for the ps, I really just meant that I am interested in that more generalized accounting process. As in, the project operates in the world, it inevitably has to choose external relationships, each of those decisions becomes part of the ethical makeup of the community, how can the project make those decisions in a more meaningful way? I think that your gesture towards a more open transparent policy for external relationships is exactly that.