On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/11/2013 12:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrange 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. > > > I agree with Daniel here. There's nothing wrong with marketing, and there's > nothing wrong with a company promoting the funding that it contributed to > get some feature written or high profile bug fixed. But, I don't believe > this marketing belongs in the commit log. In the open source community, > *individuals* develop and contribute code, not companies. And I'm not > talking about joint contribution agreements, like the corporate CLA. I'm > talking about the actual work that is performed by developers, technical > documentation folks, QA folks, etc. Source control should be the domain of > the individual, not the company. >
Well said > Best, > -jay > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
