thank you Myrle! excellent email. this captures my understanding of the situation too
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 14:22, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > The issue of "paying for code" is not resolved yet. I believe it can only > be resolved by the board, but I'm not against paying for code if the > conditions are right. > > The reason we don't pay for code is because paying for code would threaten > our neutrality. Projects should not have to worry about whether we are > playing favorites between technologies. Companies should not have to worry > about whether or not we are advantaging their competitors. Neutrality and > fairness are necessary preconditions for collaboration. > > But refusing to pay for code is not *sufficient* to gain neutrality and > fairness towards our projects and participants. If someone else is paying > for code (as is the case with GSoC for example), and *if we at the ASF are > *deciding* what code is produced for that money, we are still picking > winners and losers. True neutrality is a property of the decision-making > process, not the payment process.* Neutrality can't be "bought" just by > shifting the transaction from one originating bank account to another. > Instead, we need a *neutral arbiter and transparent standards* by which > decisions are made. But Roman also correctly pointed out that the optics > are important too. It's not just about whether we *are* neutral, it's > about whether we *look* neutral. Because if we look like we're taking > sides, that will just as surely kill collaboration, as if we actually are > taking sides. > > Fortunately project- and company-neutral decisions are possible, otherwise > we'd have run into trouble long ago. We have many programs in which we are > distributing scarce resources and services. TAC, ApacheCon talk selection, > infra, GSoC, and so on, But this question has motivated the extensive > conversations in the last month on multiple lists about what makes a > process neutral, and what makes it *look* neutral. > > Some participants in that conversation are taking the position that the > money has to skip the ASF bank accounts to *be* neutral. Others are > concerned about whether it *looks* neutral. We've also talked on > dev@diversity about how to keep a sort of "judicial independence" in the > process. I've proposed a process there, and Sage has described Outreachy's > process. Naomi and Gris have described the goals we want to achieve, which > can be a basis for transparent standards. I believe we're very close to > having our neutral arbiter and our transparent standards. > > That leaves the optics. As Roman correctly said: optics matter. Are we > willing to explain a view of neutrality based on a fair process rather than > the end-points of the money transfer? Do we think it's possible to > transmit this understanding to the ASF membership? Are we even in > agreement about it? Just because I think it's blindingly obvious, doesn't > actually mean that I'm right about it. Just end of last week I was ready > to jump on the "just keep it off the ASF bank accounts" bandwagon. ; o) > > Best Regards, > Myrle > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:11 PM Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Expanding on my comment below. > > > > GSoC and Outreachy both provide stipends for people who are developing > > code. > > > > In one case, the cause is to introduce students to open source. In > > the other, the cause is to increase diversity. Both are worthy > > causes. > > > > In one case, we literally are in the position to pick winners and > > losers, and we are comfortable with that as we do so with well defined > > criteria that are product and technology neutral. In the other, the > > decision will be made by a third party according to well defined > > criteria that are product and technology neutral. > > > > I don't see the slippery slope here. I'll borrow words from Naomi: > > this is the same rebuttal I have to the "slippery slope" argument. it > > presumes that we are unable to exercise good judgment when required to > > do so. > > > > I'll add that slippery slope itself is itself a fallacy, from > > https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope: > > > > The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the > > issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. > > Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals > > will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion > > fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly > > tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture. > > > > This is a cause the ASF should not passively leave to others. It is > > our problem. We now have identified an independently administered > > mechanism that will address the neutrality concerns. One that is used > > by other FOSS foundations. Let's join them. > > > > - Sam Ruby > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:34 PM Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:47 PM Roman Shaposhnik < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > P.S. It feels like this is the closest (and cleanest) we can come to > > take > > > > care of the neutrality concerns. I also feel that we will still have > > to tackle > > > > "ASF now pays for software development" optics of this and make a > sort > > > > of executive decision around whether the pros of the program outweigh > > the > > > > cons of the blowback. Or not. > > > > > > The pays for part should not be an issue. I have a credible offer by > > > a sponsor to pay for 3 interns in December. I've shared details of > > > this offer privately with the committee[1]. These funds will flow > > > directly from the sponsor to Outreachy. I'm hopeful that other > > > sponsors will join. > > > > > > - Sam Ruby > > > > > > [1] > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/355b4e7c6395fb8825bb1c317876e4c10113df6eb08da1cd92030cd6@%3Cprivate.diversity.apache.org%3E > > >
