if you can’t justify that rule beyond “that’s how we do it”, it’s a useless rule and should be abandoned. if you can’t find a reason beyond “we should be neutral”, that’s the end of the productive discussion as far as I’m concerned lol
On Wed 26. Jun 2019 at 22:09, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
