incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
Date Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:12:27 GMT

On 04/27/2015 02:45 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 06:50 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>> Initial sketch placed on the wiki:
>>> Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly.
>>> No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in
>>> 2015ish).  My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go
>>> directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if
>>> there are any other thoughts on the matter.
>>> - Sam Ruby
>> So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern).
>> Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and
>> codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now)
>> the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources,
>> and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the
>> associated areas.
>> My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that
>> the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean
>> for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing
>> development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer
>> working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy,
>> secretary workbench, etc.
> What a wonderful question!!
> My take: a contractor cannot be paid to work on Whimsy, that's fair and
> understandable. He is paid to work on ASF infrastructure. However, as a
> part of fulfilling those duties, if he needs to work on Whimsy, or to
> code up a patch on httpd, or whatever, so be it. As far as the *project*
> is concerned, he is a volunteer the same as everyone else. He's being
> paid to work on infrastructure, not on Whimsy.

This feels like sophistry, and a dangerous first step. If we have a 
*full time* employee who is working primarily on a particular project, 
then it's not odd to claim that they are being paid to develop Apache 
code. That being the case, then the ASF is doing that thing that we have 
asserted, for all time, that we will never do.

> One thing that I saw during my stint as VP Fundraising is that projects
> and the Foundation really are distinct things. The Foundation can
> contract someone to work on a project that it needs in order to support
> the work of the Foundation. If that happens to be contributing to an ASF
> project, so be it. However, they are not gaining any special privilege,
> they are as it were "paid by an external entity" just like all other
> contributors to any other ASF project.

In this case, though, it will be the ASF paying for a developer to work 
on an ASF project.

I hope that we're not just taking a convenient position that will bite 
us later.

Rich Bowen - - @rbowen - @apachecon

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message