"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 <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 12:21:01 AM To: [email protected] 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
