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. What *is* important is that
they have time and mandate to contribute broadly to the project rather
than just trying to get specific features in.
There is a huge difference actually.
Employees - almost by definition - cannot work for competitors at the
same time. Individual contributors can.
I am talking about *user* companies here - companies that do not
directly make $ on the software being produced by the project. However
they pay - either employees or contractors - they are going to protect
their proprietary IP and they need to have policies around that, but in
the vast majority of cases for actual user companies, this is irrelevant.
There are a *huge* number of companies that use ASF and other OSS
software that do not compete in any way shape or form with the various
vendors involved in the projects. I am talking about those companies -
the actual users of the software. It is very possible for these
companies to employ people and allow and encourage them to contribute
*independently* to OSS, sometimes scratching work-related itches,
sometimes just doing what needs doing. I know that seems a slightly
foreign concept these days, but there have been a whole lot of people
over the years who have done exactly this. The nice thing about working
for a company that actually uses the software is you get a clear picture
of what is important. Your direct experience using and supporting the
software comes directly back into the project. As I said, our projects
used to be full of people like this. One of our most successful early
Java projects - Struts - had no vendor-paid developers when it became
the leading Java MVC framework. The committers all used struts in
@dayjob, but they were actual users. As we have become more
vendor-dominated, contributors like that have become more sparse. That
does not mean though that this it is not a vast resource of potential
contributors and a good way to get paid at least partially to work on OSS.
Phil
As a contractor (and that also should be part of any other
contributor's clause) I can work with multiple stakeholders - even
competitors (and this is an important clause that I make sure in my
contract).
Currently, as an independent contributor i have/had business relationship with:
* Google
* AWS
* Astronomer
(And some more are coming). They are competitors, buti also they are
cooperating on Airflow - so called "coopetition". This is next to
impossible for an Employee to have several employment contracts with
competitors at the same time.
Also it allows me to lead projects and initiatives, where there is a
value brought by all those different stakeholders. Being independent
and paid by all of those make it also easier for other stakeholders to
join the efforts.
This is all extremely different to situations where the people
contributing are employed by a single Employer. That also works - of
course, and there is nothing wrong with that. But it is very
different.
J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
