incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
Date Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:17:28 GMT
+1, that's what I was trying to convey. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [] 
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <>

> 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.


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

View raw message