Of four links you provided, Jim, only two even mention this principle (the 1st and the 3rd). The other two do not contain the word "pay". A first skim does not turn up anything related. Nor does a second closer reading. It's still possible that I'm missing something, because the articles are long and I am tired.
Even the two links which mention this principle do not explain the reasoning behind the principle. They look like simplified explanations created for external people. Those explanations would remain valid if we approved these funds. Best Regards, Myrle P.S. Y'all, I've been reading D&I emails all day, and I need to get to work on ApacheCon-related stuff and MBA homework and child and house care. I'm going to have to take a break from D&I for the weekend. I won't be reading or responding to this list again until Monday. I don't know how the rest of y'all do this. On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure how you can say that considering the links I showed. Are you > saying that I, and Ross, and Dirk, and Greg, and Brett, and Phil, and > Shane, and et.al.... are all mistaken? How many more do you need?... Heck, > it's even in a press release: > > > https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/03/26/1767348/0/en/The-Apache-Software-Foundation-Celebrates-20-Years-of-Community-led-Development-The-Apache-Way.html > > "The ASF does not pay for development: thousands of committed > individuals help make a difference to the lives of billions of people by > ensuring that Apache software remains accessible to all." > > How about: > > https://community.apache.org/newbiefaq.html > > https://medium.com/@shanecurcuru/how-apache-really-works-995a091a72d3 > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > > It is clear as day, except for those who find it convenient to ignore it > or "blur" it. > > On 2019/06/27 18:18:31, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I'll just note that the new subject line is factually incorrect. What > > is correct is considerably more nuanced, and perhaps not widely > > understood. > > > > - Sam Ruby > > >
