On 2019/06/27 03:59:45, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.">
>
I find it sad that when one side of a debate uses the above wording and
phrasing, it is cause for admonishment, yet when the other side uses the exact
same, it is fine.
Example: we have one person, someone whom I acknowledge as someone who knows
The Apache Way, describe it, in passionate terms, and they are somewhat taken
to task, called antagonistic. We have another person, who describes something
else, something that aligns w/ a different "point of view", telling someone
else to not be so defensive in a dismissive (antagonistic?) way, and their word
is accepted as gospel, and even when they are somewhat 'snipe-y', people defend
them (and ask the other parties to be 'respective').
I would encourage people to read the book Radical Candor. Considering that,
without a doubt, this list will be generating some deep discussions, it would
be helpful for people to understand that such open, honest, candid discussion
is critical to success. That the intent of conversation is to inform, to teach,
to learn.
Not "to win".
Cheers!
