The issue of "paying for code" is not resolved yet. I believe it can only be resolved by the board, but I'm not against paying for code if the conditions are right.
The reason we don't pay for code is because paying for code would threaten our neutrality. Projects should not have to worry about whether we are playing favorites between technologies. Companies should not have to worry about whether or not we are advantaging their competitors. Neutrality and fairness are necessary preconditions for collaboration. But refusing to pay for code is not *sufficient* to gain neutrality and fairness towards our projects and participants. If someone else is paying for code (as is the case with GSoC for example), and *if we at the ASF are *deciding* what code is produced for that money, we are still picking winners and losers. True neutrality is a property of the decision-making process, not the payment process.* Neutrality can't be "bought" just by shifting the transaction from one originating bank account to another. Instead, we need a *neutral arbiter and transparent standards* by which decisions are made. But Roman also correctly pointed out that the optics are important too. It's not just about whether we *are* neutral, it's about whether we *look* neutral. Because if we look like we're taking sides, that will just as surely kill collaboration, as if we actually are taking sides. Fortunately project- and company-neutral decisions are possible, otherwise we'd have run into trouble long ago. We have many programs in which we are distributing scarce resources and services. TAC, ApacheCon talk selection, infra, GSoC, and so on, But this question has motivated the extensive conversations in the last month on multiple lists about what makes a process neutral, and what makes it *look* neutral. Some participants in that conversation are taking the position that the money has to skip the ASF bank accounts to *be* neutral. Others are concerned about whether it *looks* neutral. We've also talked on dev@diversity about how to keep a sort of "judicial independence" in the process. I've proposed a process there, and Sage has described Outreachy's process. Naomi and Gris have described the goals we want to achieve, which can be a basis for transparent standards. I believe we're very close to having our neutral arbiter and our transparent standards. That leaves the optics. As Roman correctly said: optics matter. Are we willing to explain a view of neutrality based on a fair process rather than the end-points of the money transfer? Do we think it's possible to transmit this understanding to the ASF membership? Are we even in agreement about it? Just because I think it's blindingly obvious, doesn't actually mean that I'm right about it. Just end of last week I was ready to jump on the "just keep it off the ASF bank accounts" bandwagon. ; o) Best Regards, Myrle On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:11 PM Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > Expanding on my comment below. > > GSoC and Outreachy both provide stipends for people who are developing > code. > > In one case, the cause is to introduce students to open source. In > the other, the cause is to increase diversity. Both are worthy > causes. > > In one case, we literally are in the position to pick winners and > losers, and we are comfortable with that as we do so with well defined > criteria that are product and technology neutral. In the other, the > decision will be made by a third party according to well defined > criteria that are product and technology neutral. > > I don't see the slippery slope here. I'll borrow words from Naomi: > this is the same rebuttal I have to the "slippery slope" argument. it > presumes that we are unable to exercise good judgment when required to > do so. > > I'll add that slippery slope itself is itself a fallacy, from > https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope: > > The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the > issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. > Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals > will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion > fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly > tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture. > > This is a cause the ASF should not passively leave to others. It is > our problem. We now have identified an independently administered > mechanism that will address the neutrality concerns. One that is used > by other FOSS foundations. Let's join them. > > - Sam Ruby > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:34 PM Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:47 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > P.S. It feels like this is the closest (and cleanest) we can come to > take > > > care of the neutrality concerns. I also feel that we will still have > to tackle > > > "ASF now pays for software development" optics of this and make a sort > > > of executive decision around whether the pros of the program outweigh > the > > > cons of the blowback. Or not. > > > > The pays for part should not be an issue. I have a credible offer by > > a sponsor to pay for 3 interns in December. I've shared details of > > this offer privately with the committee[1]. These funds will flow > > directly from the sponsor to Outreachy. I'm hopeful that other > > sponsors will join. > > > > - Sam Ruby > > > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/355b4e7c6395fb8825bb1c317876e4c10113df6eb08da1cd92030cd6@%3Cprivate.diversity.apache.org%3E >
