Thanks Roy. Yes, I would like the diversity section modified, although I'm not quite sure how I'd reword it. Even if it isn't, your post below can always be referenced again to aid anyone else who may be confused.
Ralph On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >> I posted an email earlier today where I discussed my confusion over the >> diversity requirement. I'm not comfortable doing anything without getting >> some feedback on whether the diversity requirement, as currently stated on >> the wiki, is correct or whether diversity should simply be measured by how a >> project makes its decisions as Roy suggests. > > There is no diversity requirement at the ASF. There is a behavior > requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs. > We must not confuse the two. If the Incubator says that there is a > diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure > out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that). > I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ... > and I have no cycles to spare. > > A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment > status impacts their ability to participate here. IOW, it would > create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed. > > Now, I'll explain why ... > > Everyone here participates as volunteers, even when they are > employed by someone else and that employment pays them to contribute > here. If we set requirements on diversity, we are telling potential > employers of our volunteers that they should not hire those > volunteers who happen to work on the same project. They should not > offer them employment. They should not pay them well. They > should not encourage their other employees to contribute here. > > I hope that clarifies the situation. > > I will not tolerate a perverse incentive that punishes our existing > volunteers or prevents additional volunteers from joining our projects. > That is far worse than a project that happens to be dominated by > one employer's volunteers (assuming they still *behave* as an > Apache project). > > This is not a theoretical issue. How long ago was it that Day > hired Jukka --- a spectacularly productive dude who lived in Finland? > This very issue came up at the time. Is it safe to hire Jukka when > he represents most of the diversity of Jackrabbit (at the time, > still in Incubator)? > > Do you have any idea how f*&$ing insane it would have been > if we had decided not to hire Jukka? If we had backed off because > of a frigging diversity requirement? My mind boggles at the loss. > > Or what if Day had hired him and then said he can't participate > in Jackrabbit? How much damage would that have done to Apache? > IMO, far more than anything we'd ever gain from enforcing an > arbitrary quota for PMC composition. > > I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I happen to like > getting paid while still contributing at Apache. I think it has > worked out well for both organizations, and for countless others > downstream. I wouldn't mind getting paid more. Hence, we don't > allow perverse incentives that interfere with our volunteers' > future prospects for gainful employment. It would be wrong, > even if it is well-intentioned. > > ....Roy > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
