based on the statements in your email, I will accept that "but we *do* pay for some code so can't we make another exception!" and "we can make an exception because we can maintain our neutrality in other ways" are invalid arguments. you have made it clear that both of those things are irrelevant, and I will take you at your word
which brings me back to the only question I've had regarding this topic since the start of this discussion: why should we continue to abide by this principle? what value does it provide? the answer can't be anything to do with neutrality. you ruled that out yourself. either neutrality is a side-effect of the principal or a justification for the principal. but it can't be both it sounds to me as if you're arguing that because this is a "founding principle" it does not need any further justification. but when I expressed this on the list before, you ridiculed me https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0e43e2b29e05443e352195d531306b4d68ada00a18fc677c8f6390f7@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E so what's left? I mean, what are people really fighting for here besides "that's what we've always done so that's what we must always do". this isn't a facetious question. I am genuinely perplexed. so many genuinely very intelligent people want to use to continue to abide by this principle and the best explanation I can come up with is that this resistance to change for the sake of caution being cautious, conservative with one's actions, etc, has its place. I understand that. but if this is what people are concerned about, I wish they'd just say it. it's a lot easier to have a productive discussion if everybody's rationales are made clear On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 17:41, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >
