I disagree. The ASF is designed to enable others to monetize or software do that *they* can pay people to contribute.
If we pay for code we enter into competition with the those people. Thereby reducing the money available in the market to employ people. Do you really believe the ASF could create as many jobs as have been created by the industries that use our software? Creating software to create jobs is our role as a charity. It is not to create jobs directly. Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 4:36:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal Not paying for code is a highly discriminatory policy. A typical employed or retired programmer in wealthy country, faced with a wish to build a large body of code, will ask themselves, "Which of my computers should I use?". Downloading the code will be trivial over their unlimited-data, high-bandwidth, Internet connection. We do not notice our computer access or Internet bandwidth any more than a fish notices water. Doesn't everyone measure their data storage capacity in terabytes? Now consider, even in the US, a programmer who has developed some form of chronic fatigue, making the times they can work too unpredictable to hold down a job or reliably fulfill contracts, living off social security. Or someone in sub-Saharan Africa, who shares a computer with their village if they are lucky, and connects to the Internet by tethering to a phone with a limited data plan. Not paying for code means not just favoring those who have certain resources of time, computer power, and Internet bandwidth, but absolutely excluding those who do not have those resources and cannot afford them. The board may consider the principle of not paying for code so valuable as to outweigh its discriminatory nature, but please don't pretend it does not discriminate. On 6/26/2019 3:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: ... > I would encourage the committee to focus on building a proposal that fits > within the expectations of the board, who act as they believe the membership > expect. Arguing, about the validity of a long held policy, which itself does > not discriminate, is a waste of time that could be better spent on mentoring > individuals. ..
