> Which means we need to figure out more intuitive nav on the site. Again. :)
That's a given :). The moment we can't improve something in what we do, is the moment we stop reinventing ourselves and fall into stagnation. J, On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 12:47 AM Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
