On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:20:20PM +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. > > We would appreciate to see your comments on the subject and eventually get > your approval for it's use.
IMHO, lets call this what it is: "marketing". I'm fine with the idea of a company wanting to have recognition for work that they fund. They can achieve this by putting out a press release or writing a blog post saying that they "funded awesome feature XYZ to bring benefits ABC to the project" on their own websites, or any number of other marketing approaches. Most / many companies and individuals contributing to OpenStack in fact already do this very frequently which is fine / great. I don't think we need to, nor should we, add anything to our code commits, review / development workflow / toolchain to support such marketing pitches. The identities recorded in git commits / gerrit reviewes / blueprints etc should exclusively focus on technical authorship, not sponsorship. Leave the marketing pitches for elsewhere. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev