On 2019/06/20 07:41:48, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Of course an argument can be made that paying for software development to
> make our operations more efficient is acceptable.
FWIW, I agree, but the issue is that we 'pretend' (in a way) that such
ASF-specific projects, such as Whimsy or STeVe, are the 'same' as Hadoop, or
Tomcat. And they aren't. As such, we have created some fuzziness where 'paying
for infra tooling' can be somewhat likened to 'paying for Whimsy development'
which can then be said to support 'See, we DO pay for development!'
I am simply using Whimsy as an example here... The point is that Sam wrote:
I still maintain that we do pay for development for items we need run
the foundation (and can cite numerous examples).
And of course that is true. But that is, IMO, a completely different thing than
paying for development for PMCs ('real' open source projects, ala httpd, Maven,
et.al.). In fact, Operations itself is forbidden to 'intrude' on PMCs.
Cheers!
