What about separating committers and companies? We could have a section listing all committers as we currently do and have a separate listing of all companies that employed a committer while they were contributing.
This will give individuals and companies attribution but does not make a big matrix of comparison between companies. The entry barrier for both would be to have been voted a committer. Thus single 100k loc changes for reformatting will not have an impact on this. Uwe > Am 16.08.2018 um 10:02 schrieb Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>: > > This is a tough one. I think we need to strike a delicate balance: we > should thank companies for being benefactors, but should not put up > with bragging (or as Ted puts it, genital comparisons). > > In Calcite, we allow committers to show their company affiliations[1]. > I was initially concerned, but it has turned out well: it illustrates > that our committers come from a diverse set of employers. (Which > reminds me... I need to update my affiliation in that table.) > > I think we should allow committers to give their employers due credit. > But if companies start to abuse this, we are in control. We can remove > the credit from the site. > > Julian > > [1] https://calcite.apache.org/community/#project-members >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:08 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, there are several such examples. And it turned into a monstrous mess >> with companies bragging over lines of code changed. Oddly, the guys who did >> lots of reformatting did really well. >> >> There is also the problem of the very strong Apache tradition that it is >> individuals who contribute to projects, not companies. The most that >> companies get is a thank you. >> >> I think that wes is right on that the commons is a serious threat, but >> restarting the Hadoop genital comparisons is not a great course of action. >> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 19:33 Abdul Rahman <abdulrahman...@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>> Are there examples of other larger Apache projects that have done this? I >>> am assuming this should happen rather frequently given the large number of >>> popular Apache projects (or just any other Open Source project) >>> >>> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 4:18:24 PM >>> To: dev@arrow.apache.org >>> Subject: Increasing transparency of corporate support for Apache Arrow >>> development >>> >>> hi all, >>> >>> I have been spending both compensated (inside the bounds of 40 hour >>> work weeks) and uncompensated time (work beyond 40 hours per week) >>> working on Apache Arrow since the project started. In that time I have >>> changed corporate affiliations multiple times, and I have made career >>> decisions on the basis of obtaining ongoing support for Arrow >>> development. >>> >>> I think it could be a good idea to bring better transparency into >>> support that corporations are providing by allowing employees to >>> contribute to the Arrow project without having to spend uncompensated >>> time doing so. If individuals are contributing on their own time, that >>> is also useful information to have. >>> >>> In today's age of tenuous sustainability for large open source >>> projects, I think it is helpful to make a positive example of / >>> recognize companies that are investing time and money to allow >>> individuals to contribute to this project. Open source has a >>> significant "free loader" problem, and we are already starting to >>> occasionally experience free-loading behavior wherein individuals or >>> corporations treat this project as a source of free labor. >>> >>> Building a project like Apache Arrow is difficult, because, by >>> providing an open standard columnar memory format and a development >>> platform for doing many other things, we are enabling downstream >>> applications to solve problems in new and valuable ways. While such >>> users of Arrow may derive an economic benefit, it is difficult to >>> measure and even more difficult to judge how much to give back. As >>> time goes on, we will be increasingly reliant on proactive investment >>> and support in the maintenance and growth of this project, otherwise >>> in the long run we may be doomed to the "tragedy of the commons", and >>> no one wants that. >>> >>> Ultimately Apache projects are about individuals contributing to the >>> projects of their own free will, but we are frequently dependent on >>> financial support so that individuals can afford to contribute. >>> >>> Any thoughts about what we could do? I was thinking about having a >>> page on the Arrow website showing top individual contributors, top >>> "maintainers" (by # of patches merged; I wonder if it is possible to >>> scrape code review analytics), and top corporate sponsors by number of >>> supported patches. To implement the latter, we would need to depend on >>> data provided by contributors to state their affiliations and the >>> effective date of such affiliation so that it can be updated in the >>> "database". >>> >>> For example, I would have entries such as: >>> >>> - name: Wes McKinney >>> affiliation: [Cloudera] >>> effective_date: "2016-01-01" >>> - name: Wes McKinney >>> affiliation: [Two Sigma] >>> effective_date: "2016-08-26" >>> - name: Wes McKinney >>> affiliation: [Ursa Labs, RStudio] >>> effective_date: "2018-04-17" >>> >>> The analytics on the changelog could be implemented with a simple >>> Python script. Corporations could opt-out of having their >>> contributions attributed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Wes >>>
