On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 20:18, Ross Gardler
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This is getting off topic.
>
strong disagree. Sage has (very patiently, and helpfully) reminded us of
the proposal they already outlined that addresses our concerns about
neutrality
We don't pay for development.
as David mentioned earlier, at one point, we also "didn't use GitHub".
things can change. thankfully. the question is how many volunteers do we
want to burn through before we arrive at that change
I just wish the people arguing that we shouldn't fund Outreachy would pick
a single position ("don't pay for code is axiomatic" or "don't pay for code
is about neutrality") and stick with it so that discussion can actually
make any progress
when the proposal to fund Outreachy was first made, we were told: "we don't
pay for code". when we asked why, we were told: "because it affects our
ability to neutral". now, after addressing our ability to be neutral with
our proposal, we are being told "we don't pay for code". and round again we
go
you'll excuse me if, after going around this loop-de-loop for the umpteenth
time, I'm starting to think that I'm wasting my time. and that's not to
mention how upsetting it is being insulted for even trying to follow the
argument (cf. Jim's email about him being "embarrassed" he has to "explain"
things to me while switching which argument he's choosing to make)
