On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
+1000 > > 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 _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
