Re: Request for summary update (was Re: Does Outreachy mean we are paying for code? Is that acceptable?)

[Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>]

thanks for your reply, Ted

to be clear: I have no interest in a moral or philosophical debate here. I
am as tired as anybody is with this endless bickering

the reason I sent my email anyway is because if this whole debate boils
down to "we must be cautious" vs "it's important that we change this", then
that, to me, seems like quite a different (and dare I say it, productive)
conversation to the one we've been having

"this is how we do it" isn't something you can argue with productively if
you want the ASF to start paying interns. and that conversation is going to
go in circles. as you point out, and as the activity on this list (and
others) has demonstrated

contrariwise, "we must be cautious!" *is* useful. I can work with that.
that sounds like the start of a negotiation



On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 01:18, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Naomi,
>
> Yes. As I understand it, Jim's position is that we don't pay for project
> code because that is an axiom of the foundation.
>
> We don't need to discuss why that is or whether it is based on deeper
> truths or whether he is flexible on that point. It is his position and he
> vociferously repeats it and emphasizes his former board position and status
> as co-founder of the foundation as moral authority for the position
> whenever asked for a more nuanced discussion. We don't need more of that
> right now since we have heard many repetitions already.
>
> Various other people have variants of that position. Some believe that the
> position is motivated by a short chain of logic from a different axiom such
> as vendor independence or "we don't pick winners". The conclusion is
> roughly the same and the level of flexibility is similarly small.
>
> Other people have slightly different positions.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:12 PM Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> > 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 <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2019/06/30 11:01:54, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> 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.
> > >
> >
>