On 13/11/13 17:22 -0700, John Griffith wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> 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
Yet again, couldn't agree more!
Best,
-jay
_______________________________________________
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
--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
