On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Just a FYI that we mention the what here: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/#other > > but we don't go into a lot of detail regarding the why :)
Good catch! I looked hard for that statement and didn't find it. - Sam Ruby > > On Jun 20, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > Ross, could you relay this to ComDev? It seems that putting some version of > > your writeup under the community pages would be useful, since this is > > moving from outside of D&I's area and more of a community and policy issue, > > in general. In order to make this easier, I've cc'ed dev@community on this. > > > > Cheers! > > > > On 2019/06/20 07:41:48, Ross Gardler <r...@microsoft.com.INVALID> wrote: > >> "The mission of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) is to provide > >> software for the public good. We do this by providing services and support > >> for many like-minded software project communities consisting of > >> individuals who choose to participate in ASF activities."> > >> > >> We pay for operational activities in order to provide "services and > >> support for many like-minded software project communities".> > >> > >> We don't pay for software development in our projects because our > >> "software project communities consist of individuals who choose to > >> participate in ASF activities." Paying people to produce the software is > >> not creating communities of people who choose, but rather (in part) > >> people paid by us to be present. This can result in the ASF deciding which > >> projects win, rather than the market doing so (as happens when external > >> companies pay for development) . By putting ourselves in a position of > >> influence we can no longer be independent of market forces and thus it > >> becomes very hard to be vendor neutral. A lack of vendor neutrality makes > >> it difficult to "provide software for the public good".> > >> > >> Of course an argument can be made that paying for software development to > >> make our operations more efficient is acceptable. I believe it is. We > >> already do it since infra staff write software for us, regularly. Others > >> are concerned about this being a slippery slope to paying for software > >> more generally.> > >> > >> Ross> > >> > >> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>> > >> > >> ________________________________> > >> From: Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org>> > >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 12:21:01 AM> > >> To: d...@diversity.apache.org> > >> Subject: Why does the ASF not pay for development?> > >> > >> Hi all,> > >> > >> Why does the foundation not pay for development?> > >> > >> Why do they pay for operations?> > >> > >> Why do they pay for accounting?> > >> > >> What argument lead to this core principles?> > >> > >> I want to understand as am new to the Apache way.> > >> > >> I know it might be taking us back or might even be the wrong list. Just> > >> help me understand.> > >> > >> Thanks.> > >> Awasum> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
