Thanks. Looks good to me! Idea for linking in the future and navigation: maybe there should be a new drop-down "Users" next to "Contributing" or maybe a separate "Users" section in the "Contributing" dropdown?
There we could add a link to the new page alongside a separate page where we describe various ways how individual users can and should) contribute - explaining how this is beneficial for individuals and welcome that our users are involved more than just "using" - another variation on the "Free as a puppy"? The proposal now is also about "free as a puppy" variation more focused on commercial/institutional users - but I was thinking that we could have another one without the "business/company" angle to it - that should be rather addressed to individual users -> the two pages together might be enough for a separate Users drop-down or section. For me Users are important members of the community. Often we tend to forget - in our discussions and documentation and talks and thinking about our community that our PMCs (and ASF) would not have a reason for existence if not the users. So Users are as much part of the community as committers, PMC members and code contributors (with obvious overlaps). And it is a bit of a double edged sword - because if we don't talk about our users as part of the community - they don't even realise and understand that it's not only welcome but also pretty much expected from them to contribute - in various forms, even as simple as testing release candidates, creating well described issues, starting discussions about things they are interested in. For me that is a very, very beginning of a contributing journey that we often don't talk about. J. On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 7:33 PM Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > Merged. Thanks. > > > On Jan 16, 2026, at 1:18 PM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I still think there are my points about contractors vs. employees > > difference. currently even the description of "employee" compares it to > > "working on internal projects" and there is mention about "dedicating > > employee time", but I really think (and know - not only from my > experience) > > that there are many people working as "contractors" on open-source > project > > which is different that "employment", so at least we should mention it > > because it's not "supporting/sponsoring" - it's contracting with people > > who contribute - not only maintainers like me - but also regular > > contributors. > > > > For example Google contracts with EPAM (and used to contract with > Polidea) > > - and we were not Google Employees then (yet obviously those contracts > make > > Google much more visible in the community and their needs better > addressed). > > > > I proposed - really really minimal changes to make that option visible > now > > - without changing the structure of the proposed documents (see my 3 last > > suggestions). > > > > > > J. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:29 PM Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Ok, folks, I think I’m ready to call this RC0. I *think* I’ve addressed > >> all of the comments already made on the PR, although perhaps not in > exactly > >> the ways suggested. > >> > >> I think that this is ready to publish. Note that it is *NOT* yet linked > >> anywhere in the navigation, or from any pages, but it would be > accessible > >> by the tags navigation if someone went looking. > >> > >> It’s definitely not perfect yet, but once it’s merged (if folks are > >> willing) then it would be more fair game for anyone to modify/enhance it > >> and not seen as just mine. > >> > >> So, what do you think? > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216 > >> > >> (And, yes, despite some helpful comments on Slack about how to stage the > >> site for preview, I have still been unsuccessful in getting that to > happen. > >> Apologies. The Git/GitHub magic to get that pushed to a preview/* > branch is > >> somehow evading me. > >> > >>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more > >> persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in ASF > >> projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature here > or > >> there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects, > >> earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially > supporting > >> the project and the foundation. > >>> > >>> I’ve started a rough draft here: > >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216 > >>> > >>> (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git > >> checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh > >> run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your > >> browser. > >>> > >>> Your input is welcome. > >>> > >>> The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why, > >> they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect > vendor > >> neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that is > >> already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly > preferred > >> over voluminous prose. > >>> > >>> Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become > >> outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by > the > >> end of this week. > >>> > >>> — > >>> Rich Bowen > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> — > >> Rich Bowen > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > — > Rich Bowen > [email protected] > > > > >
