It looks like a conclusion has been reached. For what it's worth, I agree it is best to leave the list of companies providing support as is.
Regards, Frode On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mike Jumper <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > >
