this is the last time I will repeat myself on this matter. I am struggling to understand why people are having a hard time grasping my argument. I know I am not always the best communicator, but this is getting silly
there are two possibilities: 1) "don't pay for code" is a corollary (as Sam puts it) to the principle that the ASF must be neutral. i.e., it only exists because it helps us do that 2) "don't pay for code" is an axiomatic first principal and we must trust "the founders" of the ASF without questioning it your email seems to flip-flop between (1) and (2) in a way that I find confusing. you invoke the rhetoric of (2) to defend the neutrality principle. but they're two separate things you say that I am challenging "don't pay for code" because nobody has explained it sufficiently. which is false. and I told you that was false, with a clarification, in my previous email. the explanation I have been given is summarized as (1), above here's what I'm saying to people who believe (1) -- I would say, read Myrle's email[1] and come up with some sort of substantive counter-argument. because I agree with her that (a) neutrality is important, but that (b) "don't pay for code" is not working as intended [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d2ef5bfa16e15806130266669d30f8bbcf9282feec754f9bc5c5114f@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E to the people who believe (2) -- I would say, that's a ridiculous argument. end of discussion On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:41, Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/27/2019 9:35 AM, Naomi S wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:26, 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. >> > > can you point me to where I have indicated that I don't accept neutrality > as a core tenet? > > I accept that neutrality is important. and I welcome conversations about > what sort of neutrality we care about, and how we implement that > neutrality. for example, see Myrle's previous email (from this very > thread): > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d2ef5bfa16e15806130266669d30f8bbcf9282feec754f9bc5c5114f@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > The core tenet I am referring to is not paying for code. I've heard it > for 15 years. It's based on a concern it threatens another core tenet with > vendor neutrality. So yes, not paying for code and being vendor neutral > are well espoused tenets of the ASF. > > You appear to be challenging that not paying for code is an invalid tenet > because no one has explained why to you sufficiently. If you asked me why > do we have a 1st amendment in the US, I would tell you to study history and > trust the founders. The answer is the same for the ASF and that history > will show you that the founders thought it was very important to be neutral > as a differentiator from other organizations and that accepting payment for > code would be a slippery slope eroding that neutrality. > > Regards, > > KAM > > -- > Kevin A. McGrail > Member, Apache Software Foundation > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin > Projecthttps://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 > >
