I respectfully disagree that I've said the discussion is over. I have asked a question, not made a statement. Additionally, I have no horse in this race. I am advising people that are fairly new to the ASF that they are fighting a very very difficult battle with a core belief of the ASF. YMMV.
However, I do think the use of argument fallacies and badgering techniques asking the same question repeatedly hoping to wear out others in the debate is keeping us from doing other important tasks. As I asked previously, do we have to explain why the US 1st amendment exists or do we accept it and move on? Regards, KAM On 6/27/2019 9:36 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Kevin, I encourage you to read: > https://1eightyconsulting.com/fightin-words-6-things-to-avoid-during-confrontation/ > > Specifically, the section on “Because those are the rules.”: > > --- > There is no better way to say to somebody, “I don’t care about you or > your problems.” The unmistakable implication in these words is, “This > discussion is over.” > > If someone says this to you, don’t fire back, “Well, that’s a STUPID > rule!” Try, “Could you please take a moment to help me understand why > this rule was created?” In the process of explaining the reason for > the rule, they may talk themselves into seeing that this particular > situation may be somehow exceptional, or on the fringe of the > circumstances in which the rule was meant to be applied. > --- > > I presume that this is now how you intend to be heard, but trust me, > it is the way you are coming across. > > Please take a moment and help us understand why this rule was created. > I've been here since 1999, and we here (on the other side of the > proverbial table) before that when IBM worked with what was then the > Apache Group to create this Foundation. > > I firmly believe that "we don't pay for code" is a corollary not a > founding principle. And that it is fair game to reexamine core > principles periodically. > > - Sam Ruby > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:26 AM Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6/27/2019 9:09 AM, Naomi S wrote: >>> 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 >> OK, and why is that insufficient reason for you to accept it as a core >> tenet of the ASF? This tenet is a core differentiator for the ASF from >> other organizations that do pay for code from day 1 with the original >> founders. >> >> Like the US 1st Constitutional Amendment, it just states what cannot >> occur: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of >> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the >> freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably >> to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of >> grievances." The why is ensconced in the history of the nation. >> >> Perhaps we need a document like the bill of rights that says the >> definition of code and that the ASF doesn't pay for it? Or is that, >> like the Apache Way not really being explicitly defined, too set in stone? >> >> In any case, this isn't being anti-outreachy. I full support asking >> Sponsors to fund Outreachy earmarked to us as a gray-area work around >> for this specific issue. Like they-who-shall-not-be-named did, let's >> find another sponsor for the $10.5k in the same manner. >> >> Regards, >> KAM >> >> >> -- >> Kevin A. McGrail >> Member, Apache Software Foundation >> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 >> -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
