[ros-users] [Discourse.ros.org] [General] Discussion on ROS to ROS2 transition plan

[Thibault Kruse]

> Asking Open Robotics to make the morally best decision is a passive aggressive way of claiming that theyre choosing to do the morally wrong thing.



Let me expand. As a non-profit open-source foundation creating software without commercial license, Open Robotics has 2 distinct groups of stakeholders: The sponsors and the users. The obligations towards the sponsors are legal and economical. What obligatios are there towards the users? I call those obligations towards the users "moral", making choices impacting the users "morally wrong" or "morally right". I am open to other wording, such as "contradicting the self-defined mission of the foundation", or "counterproductive in establishing and maintaining trust", but I suggest using "morally right/wrong" for the sake of brevity, if nothing else.



In solving the problem of deciding whether to have more ROS1 distributions or not, I hope this clarifies the values and goals of Open Robotics towards the non-sponsoring users, as a driving factor for the decision to make at hand.



> suggesting that there has been embezzlement at Open Robotics



My post with the given statement has been censored btw. I was trying to say that when talking about the funding of ROS1 releases, it is not helpul to say that in the past Open Robotics has has spent (6 releases) x ($337,000) ~= 2 million $, but has received 0$ for that purpose. Because there is a gap of 2 million dollars in that calculation.



In solving the problem of deciding whether to have more ROS1 distributions or not, I hope this explains what additional information is required to explain the economical decision making.











---

[Visit Topic](https://discourse.ros.org/t/discussion-on-ros-to-ros2-transition-plan/6155/35) or reply to this email to respond.