Big +1 to everything you say here. Which means we need to figure out more intuitive nav on the site. Again. :)
Rich On Sat, Jan 17, 2026, 05:50 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > > > > > > > > > >
