On 3/5/22 12:08, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
I am talking about *user* companies here
Of course this is (as I wrote) a perfectly valid case - and it works
beautifully in many cases. I know plenty of examples :).
Maybe there was a misunderstanding of my "(unlike the models 2. 3)". I
think those models
> I am talking about *user* companies here
Of course this is (as I wrote) a perfectly valid case - and it works
beautifully in many cases. I know plenty of examples :).
Maybe there was a misunderstanding of my "(unlike the models 2. 3)". I
think those models were (and still are) crucial to the
On 3/4/22 11:28 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
Definitely another good way to support projects. I think 2. and 3.
originating in user companies can actually help foster vendor neutrality
as these companies are really just users. Whether the people are
employees or contractors is not important.
> On Mar 4, 2022, at 10:28 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
>> Definitely another good way to support projects. I think 2. and 3.
>> originating in user companies can actually help foster vendor neutrality
>> as these companies are really just users. Whether the people are
>> employees or
> Definitely another good way to support projects. I think 2. and 3.
> originating in user companies can actually help foster vendor neutrality
> as these companies are really just users. Whether the people are
> employees or contractors is not important. What *is* important is that
> they have
On 3/4/22 4:08 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
1. We can all afford to volunteer our discretionary time as we see
fit. Not just rich or retired people have discretionary time.
2. Employers can support OSS communities by allowing their employees to
contribute as part of their jobs, but not in a
>
> 1. We can all afford to volunteer our discretionary time as we see
> fit. Not just rich or retired people have discretionary time.
> 2. Employers can support OSS communities by allowing their employees to
> contribute as part of their jobs, but not in a "job shop" or directed way.
> 3.
On 3/3/22 3:20 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
I'd like to see a better solution proposed for maintaining vendor
neutrality while funding the individuals working on the project. If
every workable solution is denied, then the only people who can afford
to work on Apache projects would be rich people,
I'd like to see a better solution proposed for maintaining vendor
neutrality while funding the individuals working on the project. If
every workable solution is denied, then the only people who can afford
to work on Apache projects would be rich people, retired people, and
those who are being paid
I very much like the direction here.
One other top post that falls into item 2 (rules of engagement):
Apache does operate in the open with discussions, bug fixes, etc. all out for
anyone to see. Except for security issues.
I'd like to discuss how we treat committers with security privileges
On 2022-03-03 at 02:40:09 UTC-0500 (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:40:09 +)
Christofer Dutz
is rumored to have said:
> Just thinking out loud ...
>
> The ASF could never be an entity that people could come to looking for
> commercial support.
> That would just be in conflict with being a non-profit
Commertial support link at our project
Is not very much visited :(
from mobile (sorry for typos ;)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, 14:41 Christofer Dutz
wrote:
> Just thinking out loud ...
>
> The ASF could never be an entity that people could come to looking for
> commercial support.
> That would just
I quite agree with Dave - Tidelift should not be any different and should
be treated exactly the same as anyone else.
I really think what ASF could do is to (and this is how I understand
Roman's proposal):
* clarify the rules and limits (so that companies like Tidelift - or
Google, or AWS or
Just thinking out loud ...
The ASF could never be an entity that people could come to looking for
commercial support.
That would just be in conflict with being a non-profit charitable organization.
However, we also have this discussion about the endowment from the pinaple
funds donation.
How
We can’t know the motivations of anyone funding a “tidelift” effort.
And we have trademarks / brand to help deal with misnamed vendor product.
PMCs have the same guarantees with vendors and funders - none.
Do we need a clearer statement about participation as individuals?
Do we need
My experience with vendors that employee people to work on ASF projects is that
they have their own internal processes that are separate from the ASF’s. For
example,
as part of their product they might deliver Apache Foo for Acme Bar. The
version they
ship might not exactly match what the ASF
The way this discussion is going makes me want to ask why should tidelift be
any different from a vendor that pays individuals to work on ASF projects as
part of their employment?
The same neutrality ought to apply. Why do we need to make a new classification?
All the best,
Dave
Sent from my
+1.
It will make the maintainer's life easier with this collected information.
When we bring the commercial support to the ASF project daily
development, we still need to follow certain rules to avoid the
conflict with the Apache way we believed.
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo:
Thanks Roman for the initiative. +1 on it.
I think this might allow us to focus on what we (ASF) think is really
important and needed by the individuals who work on ASF projects, and set
our boundaries and limits their individual approach as well as clear limits
and boundaries for the
Hi,
Le mer. 2 mars 2022 à 15:19, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit :
> ...Once we've collected that type of info -- we can then sort of "evaluate
> vendors" against that list and see what they are missing, etc. We can
> even issue a wide "call to apply" for various companies if we feel like it...
+1, I
Hi!
top-posting here, since I'd like to summarize a few points to see where we
can
take this discussion. Before I do that I wanted to thank Bertrand and Jim
for
excellent, short emails/summaries and also special thanks to Chris for an
extremely informative recap of his efforts.
Personally, I'd
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 9:42 AM Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> I think for (3) we're good, the ASF will intervene if projects are not ok.
>
> But for (1) and (2) I think the ASF *wants* our projects to be good
> citizens, and we work towards that and support them, but entities such
> as Tidelift or
Hi all,
As I was confronted with the question of how commercial support or paid feature
development and Apache would work together. I came up with this way of handling
it:
If I am offering any form of commercial support or feature development I say:
"I will fix your problem. The fix then can
Hi,
Le lun. 28 févr. 2022 à 21:15, Jarek Potiuk a écrit :
> ...Proposal:
> I think we all agree that ASF meets the criteria of Tidelift already.
> Why don't Tidelift (in the places where open-source projects included are
> listed) explain that ASF projects meet the criteria, and any one is free
>
>
> I don’t care why people pay Tidelift nor do I see a reason I should have
> to.
The fact that you see no added
> value doesn’t mean people won’t pay them, even if it is just so they can
> feel
> that they are contributing to the open source they use.
Proposal:
I think we all agree that
You are still confusing how individuals in ASF projects can work with Tidelift
(or vice versa) vs why anyone would pay them. I don’t care why people pay
Tidelift nor do I see a reason I should have to. The fact that you see no added
value doesn’t mean people won’t pay them, even if it is just
> On Feb 27, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> over the past couple of years there has been a number
> of efforts trying to figure out effective ways of getting funded
> for working on ASF projects as individuals and not employees
> at companies building on top of these
Ralph:
> The ASF doesn’t “need” Tidelift. Nor do we need Google. But there are
individuals who work on projects who would welcome the opportunity to be
paid by them
I am being paid for part of my time with Google (among others). With
contract that recognizes that I cannot "do stuff they want"
if
Good $localtime, folks! I just want to underscore a really important
section of the document I provided yesterday, as it seems this detail is
lost in the mix. Tidelift very deliberately does not direct development.
I'll remain on the sidelines here as y'all deliberate, but I want to make
sure
Tidelift's model, which expects that maintainers do have direct and almost
unassailable control over a project, is not compatible with the Apache Way.
Tidelift's model works well with projects in which developers and maintainers
can "do stuff" without worrying about building a consensus around
I don’t agree. First, the “added value” Tidelift provides is not our problem.
If they can’t attract customers then the individuals on the projects they
support won’t get any money.
But, as I said, Tidelift could have a mechanism to fulfill their promises if
the
ASF had overall project
> So while I agree with everything Bertrand said I don’t think it resolves
the real issue.
TideLift is providing a guarantee to its customers that projects it
sponsors meet certain
standards. The standards they are looking for should really be set by the
ASF, not
individual projects.
This is the
First, I would like to clarify Gary’s email as I don’t think he characterized
it quite correctly.
The Logging PMC concluded we could not be part of an arrangement with TideLift
and
that the issues needed to be worked out at the foundation level. The primary
issue was
that TideLift had
I love the "summary" Bertrand. It's precisely what I had in mind but this
is is a very concise version of it :)
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:04 PM Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le lun. 28 févr. 2022 à 11:06, Jarek Potiuk a écrit :
> >...the relationships I have is direct relationship with
Hi,
Le lun. 28 févr. 2022 à 11:06, Jarek Potiuk a écrit :
>...the relationships I have is direct relationship with the
> stakeholders. Let's deel, GitHub Sponsors, SAP Ariba are merely "removing
> bureaucratic obstacles" but they are not "between" me and my stakeholders.
> They are "on a side".
Yeah. I am observing (and also applauding) Chris's effort and the
problems/struggles, and I think the Tidelift (and similar) model does not
solve any of the problems of individual contributors who want to get paid.
I might be very wrong here - of course - no monopoly on understanding the
Apache
There is a small but relatively successful funding happening right now.
The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is organizing a code sprint
conjointly with ASF and another open-source organization (OSGeo) [1].
For this code sprint, OGC and OSGeo solicited their sponsors, but ASF
could not
Hi Roman,
thanks for bringing this up here … I too want to help with exactly this. I
tried starting a discussion on this on members@ but that sort of dried up and
it felt a bit like a monologue or people simply telling me what didn’t work for
them in the past and therefore I shouldn’t try on
Hi folks, Josh here with my Tidelift hat on. (I wear many hats, as some of
you know!) I want to be extremely respectful of the discourse y'all are
having here, and so will be sparing in my engagement.
The conversations that played out after I reached out to Apache Log4j
PMC–across Legal, ComDev,
I am extremely interested in this and I very much support the effort that
Roman describes. But I do think Tidelift is not necessarily a good (and
quite for sure not the only) solution.
I think their interest is a bit separated from ASF one. They mostly want to
promote their service to get the
I was in the peanut gallery when Tidelift approached the logging project.
To me, it looked like Tidelift wanted fairly significant service level
guarantees for a very low cost and then wanted to monetize their position of
having such guarantees.
Aside from whether or not the details were
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:11 PM Gary Gregory
wrote:
> We just went through this with Log4j and decided that the Tidelift model
> was not compatible with Apache. Hopefully someone on our PMC can provide a
> recap.
>
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember there wasn't any attempt
to
We just went through this with Log4j and decided that the Tidelift model
was not compatible with Apache. Hopefully someone on our PMC can provide a
recap.
Gary
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 17:06 Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> over the past couple of years there has been a number
> of efforts
43 matches
Mail list logo
