Maybe it's time everyone took a break from this thread. I'd suggest we all take a day and revisit.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:33 AM Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) >
