Thanks for the response, Greg. Looking into Apache Cassandra's case further, I think I agree with your points.
The change to the Cassandra wiki adding the "Companies that employ ..." header was made the day after Datastax was alphabetically displaced for the first time, and that change was made specifically by Michael Weir, who at the time was the VP of Marketing for Datastax: https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ThirdPartySupport?action=diff&rev1=14&rev2=15 I don't know if there's anything else to that story, or if there was any discussion around it, but I think it's pretty clear we should avoid doing the same thing and keep the list as neutral as possible. - Mike On Jun 4, 2016 10:21 AM, "Greg Trasuk" <[email protected]> wrote: > <mentor hat on> > > Interesting question, Mike. I would say that we tend to emphasize that > committers act as individuals. It has always seemed to me that the major > thing that separates Apache from what I’d call “pseudo-open-source” systems > (Hibernate and Spring come to mind) is that fact that the project has a > life and life-span that is completely independent of the companies that may > devote resources to it. And this is a good thing, because business goals > and conditions change over time, so having the project be independent is > reassuring for “customers” of the project. So, at Apache, we try to > highlight project independence, and indeed that’s one of the graduation > criteria that we look for (not so much as “need x number of companies > involved” as “Is the community being run transparently and independently”). > > There are currently some discussions going on in other projects where a > company might want to say “we’re a major contributor to Apache Foo”, and > that’s really not kosher according to the branding rules. Similarly, > targeted donations have historically been discouraged. > > So I’d suggest that the “resources” page should probably be pretty > neutral. You want the statements to be short and factual, and you should > probably put the listing in alphabetical or random order, and you should > probably leave committer affiliation out of it. > > To put it another way, if we have a project web site saying “these > companies employ committers”, that’s really the same as saying “these > committers work for this company”, which starts to smell like the project > isn’t independent. It’s arguable, of course, but me, I’d say just avoid > the argument. > > If a company, on their website, wants to say, “We’re proud that several of > our employees are committers on Apache Foo”, I don’t think that’s a misuse > of the Apache brand, so long as it’s factual. But the Foundation would > want the PMC to discourage any suggestion that a company has particular > influence on the project. > > </mentor hat on> > > Cheers, > > Greg Trasuk > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:53 PM, Mike Jumper <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > With the addition of Arcisphere LLC to the list of companies providing > support for Apache Guacamole [1], I am beginning to think that the list > should be split between "Companies that employ Apache Guacamole committers" > and "Other companies" (see attached mockup), like what Apache Cassandra > does in their list of support providers [2]. > > > > BUT: > > > > I am concerned that doing so would be a conflict of interest, or would > at least be received by the community as a conflict of interest. > > > > Glyptodon was historically the company driving Guacamole development, > and currently employs 2 of the 3 committers on the project (myself > included). As the addition of a new committer requires a lazy-consensus > VOTE, it's clear that the individuals deciding whether another company > joins the list would be tied to the only company in that list. > > > > However, I can also see that: > > > > 1) If the project operates correctly at all, committers are INDIVIDUALS > and their selection is based purely on merit. Employer/company should not > enter into the decision. Doing otherwise would be self-defeating. Such a > project could not be or hope to become an Apache project. > > > > 2) Those looking for commercial support benefit from being able to see > how the providers of that support give back to the development community > surrounding Apache Guacamole. > > > > 3) The community at large benefits from transparency. > > > > 4) Ordering the list to favour companies that employ committers provides > an incentive for other companies to encourage their employees to contribute > to the project (or to hire committers). > > > > As I am directly connected to Glyptodon, I cannot decide this. Same > thing goes for James. I am interested in how everyone else feels, in > particular our other committer (Hello, Frode) and the mentors. > > > > If people think this is a good idea, I will move forward with a pull > request. If not, I will not. > > > > Let the discussion commence! > > > > - Mike > > > > [1] http://guacamole.incubator.apache.org/support/#commercial-support > > [2] https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ThirdPartySupport > > > >
