On 2019/06/21 19:45:36, Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote:
> can you expand on that please? how would it do that?>
>
I'll try... this will be quick, because I didn't want an
answer to wait until Monday, but I did want to provide a
flavor.
Basic to the Apache Way is trust in volunteer contributors
to Do The Right Thing. Such as self-organize, want to grow
the community, be able to work around problems and issues,
share a common goal and work towards it, etc... things like
that.
And so anything that tries to circumvent that individual power,
and the faith in the community to govern itself (to "know what's
best") should be actively avoided.
Some examples:
Why don't we allow corporations to have a say in projects: Because
corporations can easily overload volunteers in a way that shuts out
and shuts down the desires of the group.
Why doesn't the ASF pay for development? Because doing so creates
an environment where the foundation "favors" some contributor, or
some contribution, or some roadmap, instead of giving the community
free reign over it. Plus, it creates friction within that community
due to foundation intrusion ("Why did Foo get that funding? Why not
me?").
Why such a flat hierarchy (meritocracy): Because if the weight of
someone's vote was dependent upon their longevity, why would any
new contributor want to join? They'd never "catch up" and have
an equal say.
Why does merit never expire: because we optimize for the volunteer
contributor, we need to recall that life happens. And so their
available 'free time' to volunteer can ebb and flow. We should not
penalize our contributors when reality kicks in.
So you can see "not playing favorites" is a logical conclusion
based on that, but does not form the "core".
Cheers! (if the above isn't sufficient let me know and I can expand
on it next week).
