Jim, the justification for not paying for code has been given in terms of the ASF maintaining neutrality. I have not, to date, seen a single justification for this principle that didn't boil down to wanting to remain neutral
I'm not ignoring that. I'm not saying that being neutral is not important. it's disingenuous and insulting of you to imply otherwise however, here is what you said in your previous email: "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." "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 not sure how to make this point without literally just rewording what you wrote. but you explicitly stated in your previous email that "neutrality" is not the justification for the "don't pay for code" rule. you explicitly state that the "root principle" is "don't pay for code". root principal as in, there is no lower-level justification for it. it is an axiomatic principle that we expect people to value without further explanation you're effectively saying "we don't pay for code because we don't pay for code". which is the same as saying "that's just how we do it" On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 23:48, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2019/06/26 20:55:52, Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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> > > > > It has been justified numerous times by several people. It has been a > guiding principle for decades. Now you are free to ignore all that, or > disregard that (you can't teach people who refuse to learn), but pretending > that the only justification that has ever been made for it is "that’s how > we do it" is just plain silly and disingenuous and so obviously false that > I am somewhat embarrassed to even respond to it.
