On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > On 4/27/15 10:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < >> ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely >>> do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention >>> simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software >>> because we don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch >>> upstream. >>> >>> As long as all committers are equal and earn their merit in the >>> traditional way I don't see a problem from the projects side. IN this >>> instance the ASF is just another contributor to the project. >>> >>> This means "the foundation never pays for development" to something like >>> "the foundation never pays for development except where the modification is >>> made as part of our normal infrastructure operations. On these rare >>> occasions the foundation is just another employer and the contributor is >>> just another community member. Changes are contributed upstream through the >>> normal contribution process. There is no special role for ASF infra >>> contractors." > > Yes, that's a separate and important point. Every project PMC > determines merit for their project independently. Just because someone > is root@ does not mean they get a free committer bit on project X or > binding votes - unless that PMC votes them in. > >>> >> >> The ASF pays for Infra contractors. Their job/role is to maintain our >> systems. Sometimes their duty *may* be to contribute software to $Project >> (wherever that may be). > > It's pretty simple. Infra contractors are responsible to code/maintain > software and systems that the ASF needs to operate, including a variety > of services that we provide to our projects. Their duty is to build > stuff the ASF needs for our own operations. > > It doesn't matter where that code goes; Whimsy is no more special than > STeVe is for that matter. > >> That is *very* distinct from paying a person to contribute directly to >> $ASFProject. > > Exactly. The ASF does not pay infra contractors to write code for > anyone else - only for our own organization's needs. Luckily, some of > those needs require software that may also be useful for the rest of the > world - but our own needs are what we do paid work for. > > I don't see this being a problem. 8-)
We seem to be in agreement, but I still sense reluctance from Rich and David. I'd like to suggest a frame of reference that will make future discussions on topics like this one easier. The concern is that if the ASF directly or indirectly funds project X, what happens when project Y wants to be funded? The frame of reference I'd suggest is "who makes the call". The Whimsy PMC is not asking for money. No sponsor is directly asking for money to be earmarked for Whimsy development. The board is not asking for this. The board does ask that the President look after operations (a.k.a., keep the foundation running). The President has identified tools such as the board agenda and secretary workbench as strategic. VP of operations is investigating a what it will take to support such tools. Where it all comes together is in the board approving budget requests. TL;DR: Since Whimsy didn't ask for this, I don't believe that we setting a dangerous precedent whereby future projects can lobby to be funded. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
