Are you disagreeing that it is discriminatory, which is all that I
asserted, or just that the trade-off may favor keeping the policy anyway?
On 6/26/2019 4:45 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
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.
..
