On 2019/06/30 11:01:54, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have a strong tradition here of independence and being vendor
> neutral. We don't pick winners and losers. "We don't pay for code"
> is a useful approximation of those values. It has plenty of
> exceptions, just like the ones that described in the link above.
>
Actually, the principle is that we, the foundation, do not pay for development
for Apache projects.
Phrasing it as "we do not pay for code" is a shorthand, but does not, in fact,
"define" the tenet. Saying that such things as paying contractors for
self-service Infra code is some sort of "exception" to that tenet, has been
debunked my several people, as has been explained by numerous people including
Greg, our head of Infra, previous director and previous Chairman. A logical
outcome (effect) of that policy is that we are vendor neutral, but that is not
the source of that tenet, but rather an extension of behaviors based on that
tenet (we also have a duty to be vendor neutral as well, due to our 501(c)3
status, but that is a related but different point).
Previous threads have made that distinction and clarification clear, and it has
been confirmed by numerous people who have been officers, founders, directors,
etc.
I would ask that those continuing to spread this misinformation, or
mischaracterization of the actual facts, please stop doing so. Framing the
argument as "we do not pay for code, (when we obviously do)" and "the core
reason for this is neutrality" is incorrect and disingenuous and somewhat
self-serving. It significantly harms the validity of their other arguments and
points of view which have value and useful insight, and requires wasted time
and energy for those who need to repeatedly set the facts and the record
straight.
