> I think continuing with the current attitude would only lead my company > to reevaluate its involvement in ASF projects, and I could not really > blame them if they did. Of course, this may be what some people here > seek (hopefully, it is not and it's just my paranoia at work).
I am sure the community is thankful for the individual contributions and therefor is also thankful for the companies letting their employees spend time for working on Apache projects. But... Usually companies don't let their employees spend so much time (and therefor money) just for the good of mankind. Usually they have an interest in fixing certain things because they want to benefit from a product being developed and maintained by a large number of developers they *don't* have to pay. As a matter of fact we have quite some committers in our community that are sponsored by the companies they are working for. Who is able to define whether who is the "leading" or "main" contributor? I would not want to risk picking the wrong one and pissing off other contributors. So either name them all or drop this classification. Terms like "main" or "leading" are a problem. Naming them all for such an award is very inappropriate IMO. No problem listing all the companies that contribute to a certain project somewhere. A contributors file ...or even on the website. But refering to JBoss as the main contributor is not in the spirit of the community IMO. So that's why we should ask for the change. Assuming JBoss will respect the community this should be no problem at all ...and be no reason to "reevaluate the involvement". cheers -- Torsten
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
