Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
On 2019-04-17 9:04 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote: I want to understand how we see and value the topic since I consider it an important influencer in the D topic. More clearly - some projects are not diverse on the commercial vendor affiliation dimension, which can create an environment not so friendly for diverse voices to exists so worth exploring this potential root cause. I need time to elaborate on this hypothesis since it might help articulate a better question. I 100% agree, without naming names. Holding back committership from people who may not have the same ideas as you, giving them "limited committership" privileges (effectively no different that 'contributor' status), or simply ignoring those contributions can "other" many -- all of this can be wielded poorly by corporations intent on ensuring their own commercial interests in an Apache project are not subverted. I just don't want to lose sight of what the ASF has managed to achieve over its existence, namely setting the bar for supportive, collaborative cooperation between volunteers and corporations in the open source realm, in the interest of the public good. Finding a way to acknowledge, at the project level, specific corporate involvement and commitment as good development partners without lionizing or deifying them in the eyes of the general public or the project's user base is critical. Thank you! And thank you for raising something that I've been too nervous to bring up on my own. -Joan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
On 4/17/19 6:05 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:04 PM Joan Touzet wrote: I'm generally in agreement with Rich, Jim, Shane, Sam and the other "grey beards" who have responded on this thread already. We recognize the individual, not the company, and the individual gets the merit. Meta comment: looking at the "grey beard" comments (including my own), I'm not impressed with how we collectively communicated (though Rich comes closest). This was a perfect opportunity to practice https://xkcd.com/1053/. Instead many of the responses (again, including my own, and all presumably entirely unintentionally) could be taken along the lines of "you should have known" instead of "you're one of today's lucky 10,000". I'll try to do better with my response to this email. It won't contain WOO HOO levels of excitement, but hopefully a few people will feel like one of today's lucky 10,000. One of the things that makes the ASF different than other foundations: if many other foundations, a corporation can literally buy a seat on the board, and therefore get a say in the technical direction of foundation projects. I'm proud to say that that is not remotely a possibility here at the ASF. Corporations don't get a say in how we operate. Heck, board members (and Presidents) don't get to set technical direction. That said, there are always rumours and scuttlebutt floating around of this sort: "If company Q wasn't supporting Project X, Project X would have died by now." Or: "Company J went out of business, so Project F is basically abandoned." While industry insiders and project members themselves are largely aware of these special situations, others outside of the community may not be. When I talk to people about incubation, what I typically say is that the goal of incubation is to ensure that the project survives should any company lose interest. Often times I am talking to people who work for my employer (IBM) who come in saying that of course it couldn't happen to the project we are talking about because it is /strategic/. I then point out any number of previously /strategic/ projects that IBM once championed and later abandoned. Gris, this is the flip-side of what you are proposing: making this implicit knowledge more explicit. The danger in writing it down is that it will change people's opinions of . By making these (sometimes intentionally) nebulous relationships more concrete by putting them on project home pages, you will necessarily impact how the project is perceived, likely reducing its autonomy. Do we want to do this? I think perhaps not. I will challenge this, using the flip side of the argument. Making a project homepage look like a NASCAR driver will, in the long run, embarrass a number of companies that once were backers of a project, but found that their priorities change. This is not theoretical. I often have meetings with some of those same people I talked to years ago about the purpose of incubation who want do things to set things right when their priorities inevitably change. The last thing we want to do is to embarrass them by pointing out that they are no longer active committers. I once was an active committer to Ant. Over time, I became less so. There was no single point in time when I stopped. And despite my departure, the project is still thriving. And in that case, neither my involvement or changing interests had anything to do with my employer. One thing that's occurred to me in the past is: wouldn't it be nice to know exactly who everyone on a given PMC works for, in the event of "blocs" of voters banding together smelling fishy in terms of projecthttps://xkcd.com/1053/ independence? This comes up frequently, and the end result of the discussion generally is along the lines of: at most, that data should be taken as an indicator suggesting when deeper investigation is warranted. Even then, it should be something that should be a trigger for an investigation. It should be fishy behavior that triggers an investigation. +1 (minus the "thinko" he he) Another point on this. One thing that I have always loved about the ASF is that identities here are built on what people do in our communities, not "who they are." We don't currently force people to disclose employer or other affiliations and I hope we never go there, partly because by doing so we will have taken what should be irrelevant information and pushed it in front of peoples' ASF identities. Phil Then, on [5], I read this: Apache projects are run solely by their PMCs, as projects independent of outside corporations or organizations. It is important to maintain both the actual independence of our PMCs from third parties, as well as to ensure that PMCs are clearly seen to be run as independent projects, free of any controlling, exclusive, or otherwise exclusionary relationships with third parties or outside corporations. So again we have the problem of "writing it down may make it seem
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:05 PM Sam Ruby wrote: > > This comes up frequently, and the end result of the discussion > generally is along the lines of: > at most, that data should be taken as an indicator suggesting when > deeper investigation is warranted. Even then, it should be something Significant typo/thinko. The above should read "shoudn't be" > that should be a trigger for an investigation. It should be fishy > behavior that triggers an investigation. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:04 PM Joan Touzet wrote: > > I'm generally in agreement with Rich, Jim, Shane, Sam and the other > "grey beards" who have responded on this thread already. We recognize > the individual, not the company, and the individual gets the merit. Meta comment: looking at the "grey beard" comments (including my own), I'm not impressed with how we collectively communicated (though Rich comes closest). This was a perfect opportunity to practice https://xkcd.com/1053/. Instead many of the responses (again, including my own, and all presumably entirely unintentionally) could be taken along the lines of "you should have known" instead of "you're one of today's lucky 10,000". I'll try to do better with my response to this email. It won't contain WOO HOO levels of excitement, but hopefully a few people will feel like one of today's lucky 10,000. One of the things that makes the ASF different than other foundations: if many other foundations, a corporation can literally buy a seat on the board, and therefore get a say in the technical direction of foundation projects. I'm proud to say that that is not remotely a possibility here at the ASF. Corporations don't get a say in how we operate. Heck, board members (and Presidents) don't get to set technical direction. > That said, there are always rumours and scuttlebutt floating around of > this sort: "If company Q wasn't supporting Project X, Project X would > have died by now." Or: "Company J went out of business, so Project F is > basically abandoned." While industry insiders and project members > themselves are largely aware of these special situations, others outside > of the community may not be. When I talk to people about incubation, what I typically say is that the goal of incubation is to ensure that the project survives should any company lose interest. Often times I am talking to people who work for my employer (IBM) who come in saying that of course it couldn't happen to the project we are talking about because it is /strategic/. I then point out any number of previously /strategic/ projects that IBM once championed and later abandoned. > Gris, this is the flip-side of what you are proposing: making this > implicit knowledge more explicit. The danger in writing it down is that > it will change people's opinions of . By making these (sometimes > intentionally) nebulous relationships more concrete by putting them on > project home pages, you will necessarily impact how the project is > perceived, likely reducing its autonomy. Do we want to do this? I think > perhaps not. I will challenge this, using the flip side of the argument. Making a project homepage look like a NASCAR driver will, in the long run, embarrass a number of companies that once were backers of a project, but found that their priorities change. This is not theoretical. I often have meetings with some of those same people I talked to years ago about the purpose of incubation who want do things to set things right when their priorities inevitably change. The last thing we want to do is to embarrass them by pointing out that they are no longer active committers. I once was an active committer to Ant. Over time, I became less so. There was no single point in time when I stopped. And despite my departure, the project is still thriving. And in that case, neither my involvement or changing interests had anything to do with my employer. > One thing that's occurred to me in the past is: wouldn't it be nice to > know exactly who everyone on a given PMC works for, in the event of > "blocs" of voters banding together smelling fishy in terms of > projecthttps://xkcd.com/1053/ > independence? This comes up frequently, and the end result of the discussion generally is along the lines of: at most, that data should be taken as an indicator suggesting when deeper investigation is warranted. Even then, it should be something that should be a trigger for an investigation. It should be fishy behavior that triggers an investigation. > Then, on [5], I read this: > > > Apache projects are run solely by their PMCs, as projects independent > > of outside corporations or organizations. It is important to maintain > > both the actual independence of our PMCs from third parties, as well > > as to ensure that PMCs are clearly seen to be run as independent > > projects, free of any controlling, exclusive, or otherwise > > exclusionary relationships with third parties or outside > > corporations. > > So again we have the problem of "writing it down may make it seem truer > than it really is," and creating the perception of people not knowing > how to take off their Corp hat and put on their PMC hat. We have to > balance this against the need for projects to have the assurances that > their PMC is acting neutrally. Right now, I think the only escalation > path is for the project to go to the Board if they feel the PMC is > railroading a project away from its best interests...and
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
I just want to let everyone know that I am reading you and I acknowledge and appreciate all opinions here. I need time to continue the discussion on a few ideas I see here. To clarify, I am *not* proposing we do this, I want to understand how we see and value the topic since I consider it an important influencer in the D topic. More clearly - some projects are not diverse on the commercial vendor affiliation dimension, which can create an environment not so friendly for diverse voices to exists so worth exploring this potential root cause. I need time to elaborate on this hypothesis since it might help articulate a better question. Thank you! On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:14 PM Joan Touzet wrote: > Sorry for the self-reply, this sentence: > > On 2019-04-17 18:04, Joan Touzet wrote: > > The danger in writing it down is that it will change people's > > opinions of . > > should read: > > > the situation by implying the corporate relationship itself is what > > is driving the decision making, when that may not be true at all. > > -Joan > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
Sorry for the self-reply, this sentence: On 2019-04-17 18:04, Joan Touzet wrote: > The danger in writing it down is that it will change people's > opinions of . should read: > the situation by implying the corporate relationship itself is what > is driving the decision making, when that may not be true at all. -Joan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
Sorry for the self-reply, this sentence: On 2019-04-17 18:04, Joan Touzet wrote: > The danger in writing it down is that it will change people's > opinions of . should read: > the situation by implying the corporate relationship itself is what > is driving the decision making, when that may not be true at all. -Joan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
> Some employers actually employ people from the community to work on Open Source projects. Sorry for wordy email, but this topic is something I really care about and I assume some (employed) contributors don't understand it. I'm employed, and I use both my work and free time to contribute. But I contribute as an individual, I represent my own view when I participate in PMC discussion because I do believe in hats concept when I communicate with others I wear the hat of a community member: committer and PMC. This allows all fellows to feel free, then they have a disagreement. If we have a disagreement we, as a community, can build a consensus to find out the best possible decision. I think it is a key thing that allowed a number of ASF projects to become leading projects in their area. I also think companies can benefit from donating part of their code to open-source because a community can bring vision and ideas on how to make things better. Mentioning companies is possible somewhere in the project committers list. But it is not a good practice to stress it in emails signatures/use corporate email address/or pay too much attention to an employer on website. This can make others feel that if you employed by company A, you may have more power/influence in the community - it is not the case in the ASF. I think the responsibility of every project PMC is to avoid it. As for mentioning personal profile, probably it is not prohibited to add a link to the linked-in profile in the website field in Apache Directory. Some communities add a reference to contributors' profile in the list of committers. But still, it is always made in the context of the individual, not any kind of company contribution. чт, 18 апр. 2019 г. в 00:16, Jim Jagielski : > The ASF is an entity which is focused on the individual contributor... all > "merit" obtained is obtained by the *contributor* and not their companies. > There are some exceptions, such as the code donation of a large chunk of > code: that can be, and is, "attributed" to a company. But in general, the > focus is on the *contributor*. This is because we want to create a healthy, > viable pool of volunteer contributors no matter WHO signs their paychecks, > and projects which are truly independent upon any single company or set of > companies. We have seen how this can end, and it is not pretty. > > There are plenty of ways that companies can get attribution by the ASF, > but the normal day-to-day contributions are not it. > > > On Apr 17, 2019, at 2:27 PM, Griselda Cuevas > wrote: > > > > Hi ComDev, > > > > What are your opinions/best practices on attributing contributions to > > commercial vendors who support an Apache project. I recently had a few > > discussions with folks in OSS and they convinced me on this being a good > > idea because it has a two-fold purpose: > > > > > > 1. > > > > It brings clarity to project roadmap and dependencies. > > Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & > > contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions > faster and > > gives companies the ability to accept user suggestions. > > But the roadmap of a project is NOT set nor determined by a company. Nor > even by the ASF. It is set by the project community, with guidance and > stewardship of the PMC. Users and contributors just need to know to contact > the ASF, not investigate what companies are "involved". Any user > suggestions and feedback should be directed to the ASF and the project and > NOT to any companies. This is very important: the ASF cannot in any way be > beneficial or partial to any company. The ASF and our projects are, AND > MUST BE, fiercely independent. > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > Gives recognition to the companies (or individuals) who are investing > in > > Airflow. > > This in the long term adds value to the project brand itself as it’s > > easy to demonstrate who is using/contributing to the project. > > Again, this is a project task, not a company one. > > > > > > > So my question is: Have you seen this done in a project? If yes, how they > > do it? Would you support this? > > > > I want to clarify that I understand that Open Source is about the > > individuals and not the companies, however I also see the need for > > transparency for the sake of project agility. > > > Well, APACHE is all about individuals... It is what separates us quite > markedly from other FOSS organizations and foundations. Linux Foundation, > for example, is perfectly OK with fuzzing the line between community and > companies and even, at times, weighing the scales in favor of companies > when needed. The ASF never has, never does, and never will. Because we are, > quite frankly, ALL about the individual. To truly understand the ASF, one > MUST grok this. > > > > > Thanks > > > > G > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
I'm generally in agreement with Rich, Jim, Shane, Sam and the other "grey beards" who have responded on this thread already. We recognize the individual, not the company, and the individual gets the merit. That said, there are always rumours and scuttlebutt floating around of this sort: "If company Q wasn't supporting Project X, Project X would have died by now." Or: "Company J went out of business, so Project F is basically abandoned." While industry insiders and project members themselves are largely aware of these special situations, others outside of the community may not be. Gris, this is the flip-side of what you are proposing: making this implicit knowledge more explicit. The danger in writing it down is that it will change people's opinions of . By making these (sometimes intentionally) nebulous relationships more concrete by putting them on project home pages, you will necessarily impact how the project is perceived, likely reducing its autonomy. Do we want to do this? I think perhaps not. One thing that's occurred to me in the past is: wouldn't it be nice to know exactly who everyone on a given PMC works for, in the event of "blocs" of voters banding together smelling fishy in terms of project independence? Then, on [5], I read this: > Apache projects are run solely by their PMCs, as projects independent > of outside corporations or organizations. It is important to maintain > both the actual independence of our PMCs from third parties, as well > as to ensure that PMCs are clearly seen to be run as independent > projects, free of any controlling, exclusive, or otherwise > exclusionary relationships with third parties or outside > corporations. So again we have the problem of "writing it down may make it seem truer than it really is," and creating the perception of people not knowing how to take off their Corp hat and put on their PMC hat. We have to balance this against the need for projects to have the assurances that their PMC is acting neutrally. Right now, I think the only escalation path is for the project to go to the Board if they feel the PMC is railroading a project away from its best interests...and I'm still not sure that doesn't put an unnecessarily high barrier in those contributors' way. But I digress. On 2019-04-17 16:54, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > Some employers actually employ people from the community to work on > Open Source projects. They should also be recognized. And (I believe, see the next paragraph!) those companies are more than welcome to put up a page (on their own websites) saying that they are privileged to have, on their payroll, distinguished individuals who are recognized as contributors, committers, PMC members and ASF members within their ranks. This would show the company's commitment to the individuals involved, which I think is a key point I'm taking away from this discussion. Shane: I couldn't tell from the marks linking page[5] whether or not this would be acceptable, since my suggestion is precisely the reverse of what is outlined there. > Regardless, I have a different view on this. It would be a nice for > individuals to fill in their professional affiliations to help others > connect with their peers in their organizations. Perhaps this could > be displayed in the people directory? It is along the lines of > allowing individuals to declare their location which ASF already > allows[1] FOAF files can certainly include that information, in the Organization or workplaceHomepage fields, though these would be supplementary to also including Apache in those same fields. I believe FOAF allows for multiples of these two classes, but I didn't read the spec in detail[2]. The question is whether or not we willfully disclose this information. Currently it's not on our list of things we disclose on ASF websites[4], and I'd be nervous about doing this across our entire base of committers without explicit assent by ComDev and maybe Legal. Another option is the 3rd party GitHub service, where you can show your corporate affiliation via the organisations you participate in. Not every company has a GitHub Org, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't browse thru frequent contributors to Apache projects there and look to see if I could see who employs those people. An ancillary question would be whether or not it's time to move from the largely abandoned FOAF format to the schema.org Person format instead, possibly in JSON-LD format [3]. This is a tangent and if we want to discuss this let's do so in a new thread. > [1] http://community.zones.apache.org/map.html [2]: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ [3]: https://schema.org/Person [4]: https://home.apache.org/foaf/index.html [5]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
The ASF is an entity which is focused on the individual contributor... all "merit" obtained is obtained by the *contributor* and not their companies. There are some exceptions, such as the code donation of a large chunk of code: that can be, and is, "attributed" to a company. But in general, the focus is on the *contributor*. This is because we want to create a healthy, viable pool of volunteer contributors no matter WHO signs their paychecks, and projects which are truly independent upon any single company or set of companies. We have seen how this can end, and it is not pretty. There are plenty of ways that companies can get attribution by the ASF, but the normal day-to-day contributions are not it. > On Apr 17, 2019, at 2:27 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: > > Hi ComDev, > > What are your opinions/best practices on attributing contributions to > commercial vendors who support an Apache project. I recently had a few > discussions with folks in OSS and they convinced me on this being a good > idea because it has a two-fold purpose: > > > 1. > > It brings clarity to project roadmap and dependencies. > Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & > contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions faster and > gives companies the ability to accept user suggestions. But the roadmap of a project is NOT set nor determined by a company. Nor even by the ASF. It is set by the project community, with guidance and stewardship of the PMC. Users and contributors just need to know to contact the ASF, not investigate what companies are "involved". Any user suggestions and feedback should be directed to the ASF and the project and NOT to any companies. This is very important: the ASF cannot in any way be beneficial or partial to any company. The ASF and our projects are, AND MUST BE, fiercely independent. > > > > 1. > > Gives recognition to the companies (or individuals) who are investing in > Airflow. > This in the long term adds value to the project brand itself as it’s > easy to demonstrate who is using/contributing to the project. Again, this is a project task, not a company one. > > > So my question is: Have you seen this done in a project? If yes, how they > do it? Would you support this? > > I want to clarify that I understand that Open Source is about the > individuals and not the companies, however I also see the need for > transparency for the sake of project agility. Well, APACHE is all about individuals... It is what separates us quite markedly from other FOSS organizations and foundations. Linux Foundation, for example, is perfectly OK with fuzzing the line between community and companies and even, at times, weighing the scales in favor of companies when needed. The ASF never has, never does, and never will. Because we are, quite frankly, ALL about the individual. To truly understand the ASF, one MUST grok this. > > Thanks > > G - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
> On Apr 17, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > > imagine some ways to recognize corporations, but Rich has a hugely > important point above: only individuals are recognized as committers, > PMC members, or ASF Members - never companies. > > So while the corporate linking guidelines above show ways PMCs can > choose to recognize corporations who help their work by donating > servers/CI/whatever, we still expect all the core work on our projects > to be done with individuals using their Apache committer affiliation - > and not their corporate affiliation. Some employers actually employ people from the community to work on Open Source projects. They should also be recognized. Regardless, I have a different view on this. It would be a nice for individuals to fill in their professional affiliations to help others connect with their peers in their organizations. Perhaps this could be displayed in the people directory? It is along the lines of allowing individuals to declare their location which ASF already allows[1]. Thanks, Dinesh [1] http://community.zones.apache.org/map.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:17 PM Shane Curcuru wrote: > > Rich Bowen wrote on 4/17/19 3:08 PM: > > By policy and long-standing tradition, no. Companies do not participate > > in projects. Individuals participate in projects. > > > > It's possible I misunderstand the question, but this is something we > > have always discouraged. > I think it's a bigger question than that, but in general I'd also be > cautious. More particularly, any new suggested practices for PMCs > should be reviewed against existing documentation: > > https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking Another link to add: https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html Specifically: > We firmly believe in hats. Your role at the ASF is one assigned to you > personally, and is bestowed on you by your peers. It is not tied to your job > or current employer or company. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
Hi, I saw a few examples of how corporate employer's emails had a negative influence on the community health and good ideas were rejected. So (in any kind) stating that Apache Project X roadmap can be driven by company Y (or companies Y and Z) it a dangerous thing. Volunteers will never join the community if everything is decided outside community and nothing they can change here. Eventually, it becomes a fake, non-diverse community, but not real community-driven open source project development. I would not recommend the usage of a project or joining the community if you feel that things go this way. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 17 апр. 2019 г. в 22:17, Shane Curcuru : > Rich Bowen wrote on 4/17/19 3:08 PM: > > By policy and long-standing tradition, no. Companies do not participate > > in projects. Individuals participate in projects. > > > > It's possible I misunderstand the question, but this is something we > > have always discouraged. > I think it's a bigger question than that, but in general I'd also be > cautious. More particularly, any new suggested practices for PMCs > should be reviewed against existing documentation: > > https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking > > The big question is: how, specifically, would this be displayed on > project websites (the projects that opt to do so, obviously)? I can > imagine some ways to recognize corporations, but Rich has a hugely > important point above: only individuals are recognized as committers, > PMC members, or ASF Members - never companies. > > So while the corporate linking guidelines above show ways PMCs can > choose to recognize corporations who help their work by donating > servers/CI/whatever, we still expect all the core work on our projects > to be done with individuals using their Apache committer affiliation - > and not their corporate affiliation. > > Having some more specific examples of what this might look like would > probably help discussing the issue as well. > > > > > > > On 4/17/19 2:27 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: > >> Hi ComDev, > >> > >> What are your opinions/best practices on attributing contributions to > >> commercial vendors who support an Apache project. I recently had a few > >> discussions with folks in OSS and they convinced me on this being a good > >> idea because it has a two-fold purpose: > >> > >> > >> 1. > >> > >> It brings clarity to project roadmap and dependencies. > >> Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & > >> contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions > >> faster and > >> gives companies the ability to accept user suggestions. > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. > >> > >> Gives recognition to the companies (or individuals) who are > >> investing in > >> Airflow. > >> This in the long term adds value to the project brand itself as it’s > >> easy to demonstrate who is using/contributing to the project. > >> > >> > >> So my question is: Have you seen this done in a project? If yes, how > they > >> do it? Would you support this? > >> > >> I want to clarify that I understand that Open Source is about the > >> individuals and not the companies, however I also see the need for > >> transparency for the sake of project agility. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> G > >> > > > > > -- > > - Shane > ComDev PMC > The Apache Software Foundation > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
Rich Bowen wrote on 4/17/19 3:08 PM: > By policy and long-standing tradition, no. Companies do not participate > in projects. Individuals participate in projects. > > It's possible I misunderstand the question, but this is something we > have always discouraged. I think it's a bigger question than that, but in general I'd also be cautious. More particularly, any new suggested practices for PMCs should be reviewed against existing documentation: https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking The big question is: how, specifically, would this be displayed on project websites (the projects that opt to do so, obviously)? I can imagine some ways to recognize corporations, but Rich has a hugely important point above: only individuals are recognized as committers, PMC members, or ASF Members - never companies. So while the corporate linking guidelines above show ways PMCs can choose to recognize corporations who help their work by donating servers/CI/whatever, we still expect all the core work on our projects to be done with individuals using their Apache committer affiliation - and not their corporate affiliation. Having some more specific examples of what this might look like would probably help discussing the issue as well. > > On 4/17/19 2:27 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: >> Hi ComDev, >> >> What are your opinions/best practices on attributing contributions to >> commercial vendors who support an Apache project. I recently had a few >> discussions with folks in OSS and they convinced me on this being a good >> idea because it has a two-fold purpose: >> >> >> 1. >> >> It brings clarity to project roadmap and dependencies. >> Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & >> contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions >> faster and >> gives companies the ability to accept user suggestions. >> >> >> >> 1. >> >> Gives recognition to the companies (or individuals) who are >> investing in >> Airflow. >> This in the long term adds value to the project brand itself as it’s >> easy to demonstrate who is using/contributing to the project. >> >> >> So my question is: Have you seen this done in a project? If yes, how they >> do it? Would you support this? >> >> I want to clarify that I understand that Open Source is about the >> individuals and not the companies, however I also see the need for >> transparency for the sake of project agility. >> >> Thanks >> >> G >> > -- - Shane ComDev PMC The Apache Software Foundation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
By policy and long-standing tradition, no. Companies do not participate in projects. Individuals participate in projects. It's possible I misunderstand the question, but this is something we have always discouraged. On 4/17/19 2:27 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: Hi ComDev, What are your opinions/best practices on attributing contributions to commercial vendors who support an Apache project. I recently had a few discussions with folks in OSS and they convinced me on this being a good idea because it has a two-fold purpose: 1. It brings clarity to project roadmap and dependencies. Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions faster and gives companies the ability to accept user suggestions. 1. Gives recognition to the companies (or individuals) who are investing in Airflow. This in the long term adds value to the project brand itself as it’s easy to demonstrate who is using/contributing to the project. So my question is: Have you seen this done in a project? If yes, how they do it? Would you support this? I want to clarify that I understand that Open Source is about the individuals and not the companies, however I also see the need for transparency for the sake of project agility. Thanks G -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
[Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects
Hi ComDev, What are your opinions/best practices on attributing contributions to commercial vendors who support an Apache project. I recently had a few discussions with folks in OSS and they convinced me on this being a good idea because it has a two-fold purpose: 1. It brings clarity to project roadmap and dependencies. Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions faster and gives companies the ability to accept user suggestions. 1. Gives recognition to the companies (or individuals) who are investing in Airflow. This in the long term adds value to the project brand itself as it’s easy to demonstrate who is using/contributing to the project. So my question is: Have you seen this done in a project? If yes, how they do it? Would you support this? I want to clarify that I understand that Open Source is about the individuals and not the companies, however I also see the need for transparency for the sake of project agility. Thanks G
Re: [jira] [Resolved] (DI-3) Create a wiki page for Diversity & Inclusion
On 17/04/2019 04:11, Griselda Cuevas wrote: > Hi Mark - for some reason it says I do not have permissions to see the link > you sent. > My ID is gris Sorry. Not the best link and I hadn't quite got the default permissions right. Try this link: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI Once you log in you should be able to create new content. Mark > > > Gris Cuevas Zambrano > > Open Source Strategist - Big Data Analytics > > +1 (650) 772-2947 > > 1160 N. Mathilda Avenue , Sunnyvale, CA 94089 > > > > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 14:35, Mark Thomas (JIRA) wrote: > >> >> [ >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DI-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel >> ] >> >> Mark Thomas resolved DI-3. >> -- >> Resolution: Fixed >> >> I set this up. >> >>> Create a wiki page for Diversity & Inclusion >>> >>> >>> Key: DI-3 >>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DI-3 >>> Project: Diversity and Inclusion >>> Issue Type: New Feature >>> Components: Comms, Documentation >>>Reporter: Griselda Cuevas Zambrano >>>Priority: Major >>> Original Estimate: 2h >>> Remaining Estimate: 2h >>> >>> We need to create a new wiki page. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA >> (v7.6.3#76005) >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >> >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
