From dev-return-364-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@diversity.apache.org Sun Jun 30 15:41:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F02D180645 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 17:41:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 24440 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jun 2019 15:41:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@diversity.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@diversity.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@diversity.apache.org Received: (qmail 24429 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jun 2019 15:41:55 -0000 Received: from ui-eu-01.ponee.io (HELO localhost) (176.9.59.70) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:41:55 +0000 X-Mailer: LuaSocket 3.0-rc1 References: To: MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:41:50 -0000 x-ponymail-agent: PonyMail Composer/0.3 x-ponymail-sender: 1cd02e31b43620d7c664e038ca42a060d61727b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2019/06/30 11:01:54, Sam Ruby 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.