On 09/27/2007 05:04 PM, François wrote: > 2007/9/27, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the >> history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant >> here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. >> >> > > IMHO, this kind of subtleties concerns marketing. When a company pays > someone to contribute to a software development, it is highly the same than > to invest into this software, however it gets its money back : consulting > (they have got commiters, their customers can directly check what they're > able to do), lobbying (commiters, they can publish their customer's > modification to avoid a re-patch at every new version), marketing (look, > they are promoting open source).
It is not really the same. If the commiter leaves the company and it is the only commiter in this company than there is no "commit access" for this company any longer. But the new company he starts at will have "commit access" now. I say "commit access" because people need to wear their Apache hat when commiting not their company hat when commiting. That does not mean that you cannot bring forward your company interest when commiting, but you are not allowed to commit something from which you know that it is against the interest of the ASF project. People here understand hat switching very well. > > Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd, and stop > to flame/troll/point at these guys. We are a meritocracy (http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy). So they have to earn commit access. Furthermore earning commit access is not only about code itself but much more about community and the style of doing development. But as others already said their contributions are welcome and continued contributions are the way to commitership. Regards Rüdiger
