On Aug 14, 2011 2:54 AM, "Gavin McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote: > I am constantly hearing an us vs them attitude, old vs new, our funds not > your funds and I got fed up with up, sorry you got the brunt. Truth is the > ASF gets money donated for all projects to benefit including OOo.
Hmm, I'm certainly not implying an us-vs-them attitude, I'm sorry if I've written in a way that's led you to jump to that conclusion. I do sense that some eyes read my contributions assuming they embody hidden criticism; I wish that would stop. I do think however that we're still fact-finding here and we need to avoid both the assumption the whole OpenOffice eco-system is going to be collapsed into Apache as well as the assumption that whatever exists now is inviolable. The size and nature of that ecosystem means it's highly likely that independent non-profits will continue to exist, and as we devise a policy we need to work out how to peacefully co-exist. One useful clarification from Shane was that Apache's fundraising policies are only intended to apply to donations routed through Apache. It's eminently reasonable that those should not be earmarked and we'll need to make that clear to the various supporting funds. We may all the same still wish to be able to give advice about how we'd like them to support whom. > You made no reference to ApacheCon no, but Simon did, then I read your mail > right after and assumed you meant the same, sorry. The above sounds great. My apologies for using ApacheCon as an example. Had I realised there were special conditions applying to some participants and that knowledge of those would obscure my point to those ware of them, I would have used a different example (FOSDEM maybe). The general case - that independent sources of support remain free to do as they wish - remains. S.
