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." > 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). That is *very* distinct from paying a person to contribute directly to $ASFProject. Cheers, -g
