On 2019/06/26 12:22:31, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes, optic matter. But more importantly, whether we arrange things
so that things *look* neutral^, the need to actually *be* neutral.
We are above board; we are transparent. I don't think we want to
go down the road where we are more concerned about how something
looks and less about whether are trying to 'get away with something'.
Cheers!
^: I wish to emphasize that moving the argument from "we do not
pay for development" to one about being "neutral" is not, IMO,
a fair play. The root principle is that we do not pay for
development; an example of that, the symptom, so to speak,
is that that it keeps us neutral. It's like saying we do not
allow anyone in our office who has the flu, but then saying
that as long as you are not sniffling, it's OK. It *looks* like
you don't have the flu, and you aren't showing some effect of
the root cause. More simply: the issue is not neutrality. Even
if there was some way to make it totally neutral, if you are *still*
paying for development, it's a non-starter.
I am worried that this distinction isn't being handled.
