Agreed on all counts (including not taking offense). See my subsequent mail. I'm not so much worried about whether the slippery slope concern is valid or not. It's about the amount of energy being spent on something that doesn't matter.
The policy itself is valid and stands. We don't need to change it or seek exemptions to it in order to work with Outreachy. We already have what looks like a workable solution that does not require the policy to be changed. Move on and be productive. Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: David Nalley <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 8:59:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Outreachy framework proposal Ross: I'm replying to your message - though not to you - though I am going to use one portion of your message, in part because I know that you won't feel like I am picking on you in particular; and because we've had tangentially related conversations before. The thought of the slippery slope of paying for code contributions frightens me. I've seen the effect that people paid to be focused on the Foundation's projects can have - they end up with outsized influence. I've also read about these effects in books like 'Producing OSS'. I worry about our neutrality. But when I read this and things like this..... > It is a fact that the ASF does not pay for code, by design. Nobody here has > the right to ignore that. Challenge it, through the membership, sure. But do > not ignore it. > It gives me pause. Statements, and especially the more antagonistic ones that I am not quoting remind me of a number of other conversations that we have had over the years - some of which predate my involvement in the ASF. I've seen statements like this before: "But the type of open, communal development done at the ASF is what makes the ASF unique. It is a core of who we are." and "Because it is a simple fact of life that has been baked into the Foundation over the past decade or more." There were also comments that $topic was antithetical to the Apache Way. Aspersions were cast about whether people advocating for $topic even knew what the Apache Way was, etc. That topic was about allowing projects to use git. It was the source of massive amounts of energy, effort and email on both sides. We literally burned volunteers out just from the conversation around it. "Apache Considered Harmful" actually emerged from that 'conversation' and we alienated a large number of folks both inside and outsider our project communities. Ironically this year we participated in a joint press release with Github and Apache about our use of Github. 10 years ago even using git at Apache would have been considered blasphemous. I don't have solutions or answers for all of this; at least not that would make everyone happy. A year ago I would have said that paying for code or docs is verboten and was counter to what the ASF is; today I wonder if we aren't invoking the Apache Way to inhibit something we don't want to see or some ill effect that may come to us down the road. I do know the following. * A number of my fellow Apache community members feel passionately that this is worthwhile. * The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache Way are robust and can tolerate failure. (We've certainly made and recovered from mistakes before, and learned from them) * ~$20k is not a material amount of money in the grand scheme of our budget. * I trust my community members to act in the best interest of the Foundation and this community. * A failed experiment is as valuable, and perhaps more valuable than a successful one. * It's okay if this goes horribly wrong, because it's a small, reversible step. --David
