On 6/27/19 9:46 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I respectfully disagree that I've said the discussion is over.
I encourage you to read that link again.
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.
The diversity numbers at the ASF speak for themselves. Fixing the
problem WILL be difficult.
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?
This is not a first amendment right issue. And the first amendment was
both documented and voted on, and the rationale is widely available.
None of these apply to the purported "first principle" that you cite.
It is you that are repeating yourself, without answering the question.
Regards,
KAM
- Sam Ruby
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
