Mark, Well stated. I think it is important that OpenStack continue to be focussed on individuals contributing to the community and not corporations.
There are plenty of metrics already being compiled using e-mail addresses. In fact, I think the visibility of 'sponsors' is already available as a result through websites like Stackalytics (http://stackalytics.com/) . Highlighting the sponsors of individual commits seems unnecessary. That's my two cents. Jay S. Bryant Linux Developer - OpenStack Enterprise Edition Department 7YLA, Building 015-2, Office E125, Rochester, MN Telephone: (507) 253-4270, FAX (507) 253-6410 TIE Line: 553-4270 E-Mail: jsbry...@us.ibm.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed. -- Sean O'Casey -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> To: Nicolas Barcet <nico...@barcet.com>, Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, openstack...@lists.openstack.org, Boris Renski <bren...@mirantis.com>, Tristan Goode <tris...@aptira.com> Date: 11/11/2013 09:58 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Proposal to recognize indirect contributions to our code base Hi Nick, On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 15:20 +0100, Nicolas Barcet wrote: > Dear TC members, > > Our companies are actively encouraging our respective customers to have the > patches they mission us to make be contributed back upstream. In order to > encourage this behavior from them and others, it would be nice that if > could gain some visibility as "sponsors" of the patches in the same way we > get visibility as "authors" of the patches today. > > The goal here is not to provide yet another way to count affiliations of > direct contributors, nor is it a way to introduce sales pitches in contrib. > The only acceptable and appropriate use of the proposal we are making is > to signal when a patch made by a contributor for another comany than the > one he is currently employed by. > > For example if I work for a company A and write a patch as part of an > engagement with company B, I would signal that Company B is the sponsor of > my patch this way, not Company A. Company B would under current > circumstances not get any credit for their indirect contribution to our > code base, while I think it is our intent to encourage them to contribute, > even indirectly. > > To enable this, we are proposing that the commit text of a patch may > include a > sponsored-by: <sponsorname> > line which could be used by various tools to report on these commits. > Sponsored-by should not be used to report on the name of the company the > contributor is already affiliated to. Honestly, I've an immediately negative reaction to the prospect of e.g. Sponsored-By: Red Hat Sponsored-By: IBM appearing in our commit messages. I feel strongly that the project is first and foremost a community of individuals and we instinctively push as much of corporate backing side of things outside of the project. We try to spend as little time as possible talking about our affiliations as possible. And, IMHO, the git commit log is particularly sacred ground - almost above anything else, it is a place for purely technical details. However, I do think we'll be able to figure out some way of making it easier for tools to track more complex affiliations. Our affiliation databases are all keyed off email addresses right now, so how about if we allowed for encoding affiliation/sponsorship in addresses? e.g. Author: Mark McLoughlin <markmc+...@redhat.com> and we could register that address as "work done by Mark on behalf of IBM" ? Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
<<image/jpeg>>
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
