+1, that's what I was trying to convey. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:05 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
