Ok, a couple of things here. First, that's not exactly what I said. I wasn't talking about recognition. I was talking about the use of financial incentives as motivation.
I'm all for recognition. If you remember a few years back ([0] and [1]), the ASF decided we needed to strip the @author tags from all sources. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. I understand the reasoning, but I still don't like it. I think having @author tags is a great way to show recognition to those deserving folks who step up and help out. [0] http://www.webweavertech.com/ovidiu/weblog/archives/000319.html [1] http://www.webweavertech.com/costin/archives/000320.html Second, as for corporation composition, you said exactly what I was trying to. Thanks! I guess what I'm trying to say is that some people will take issue with an "Open Source community" recognizing someone's effort that was bought and paid for by some Business Entity (without having signed a CCLA). I think that could attract the wrong crowd. Given such a scenario, if the money dries up, so does the help? That's nuts. Now, of course there are always exceptions. I mean, if someone offered me a job to work on Struts full-time, I'd probably jump on it. But that offer has never come, and yet, I'm still here, putting in what small amount of time I can. It's entirely possible that when word gets out that people are getting paid to work on Struts, a few companies might call into question who has the legal rights to the source code. Irrespective of what the ASL says. As well, and I'm not sure how others feel, but trying to explain to a potential client or to an existing employer that Struts 2 is the way to go is easy. However, trying to explain (at the same time) why they shouldn't pay attention to the fact that "their fiercest competitor is listed in the attribution section and on the website" is not a battle I wish to take on right now. But again, we are a community, so whatever is decided, I will go with it. Can we make this conditional on CCLAs and CLAs? That would probably ease any concern from the ASF as well. Again, just my $0.02 On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you are assuming the community isn't composed of Corporations, > when in fact, they play an important part in almost every successful > Open Source project. From providing hardware to sponsoring > conferences to paying developers to work on projects, companies play a > critical role in the community. Apache is concerned, and rightly so, > that a single company may gain too much control in a project, but > Apache just plain wouldn't exist without corporate support. One of > the core aspects of the ASF, the Apache Public License, encourages > corporate acceptance of Open Source projects. > > The core issue in this proposal is something that has bothered me > about Struts for years - we do a poor job giving credit to > contributors. I remember this one Open Source project I started > playing with that would include a little note of thanks/credit next to > a feature in the release notes, something simple like, "Added feature > foo. Thanks Wendy for the patch!" Just that little note, a few > characters really, did so much to encourage participation and build a > community. Community members want to feel like they make a difference > and when the only recognition they get is a patch buried in the depths > of JIRA or even in a commit no one will ever see, the motivation isn't > there. > > This proposal gives us an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone > - put in place a sane, community-building attribution system, and give > companies that want to give back to the community a clear path to get > involved. The ASF and Struts, in particular, has always been about > the community - isn't it time we started recognizing that? > > Don > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:49 AM, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm inclined to vote down anything mixing Community and Corporate > agenda. I > > think that's just a bad mix. In fact, the ASF has specific > rules/guidelines > > with respect to corporate involvement (employment) with too many > project > > leads. > > > > There's a reason that Apache projects are so successful, in one word > ... > > "community". I hate it as much as the next guy when movement seems to > > stagnate for weeks/months, but that's never just cause to bring in > > money/free stuff as incentive. > > > > The folks who want to help when there's a prize at the end will be the > first > > ones to dump your a## when you really need them, but don't have an > incentive > > to offer. > > > > If Struts (or any project) doesn't have enough volunteers to keep the > work > > going, then we have bigger issues. > > > > Just my $0.02! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Robert Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Don I have a few questions > > > > > > 1) I agree that this contribution has to be valuable to the > contributing > > > company > > > both technically and marketing. Back in 2003 when I obtained free > IntelliJ > > > licenses from Jetbrains for the Struts > > > Committers all they wanted was acknowledgment on our web page and > that was > > > voted down as too commercial. > > > To IntelliJ's credit they still provided the license and later > expanded it > > > to all of Apache. > > > How has the Struts PMC changed since then to allow what your > proposing ? > > > > > > 2) What if a proposal isn't on the short list of features, however > when it > > > is proposed the Struts community > > > its viewed as a useful idea ? > > > > > > 3) What if it turns out that two competing companies have different > > > implementations, which is a great place to be in. > > > Do we need to think this far ahead or using Agile methods do we > not > > > want to over design this process initially ? > > > > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Brown wrote: > > > > > > > As more and more companies start using open source software, many, > > > > like mine, are looking for ways to give back to the community. > They > > > > want a way to contribute and ensure their contribution will be > noticed > > > > and appreciated. What if we had a feature sponsorship program that > > > > encouraged companies to donate engineering time to filling out > needed > > > > features in Struts? > > > > > > > > I imagine it would work like this: > > > > 1. The Struts community comes up with a short list of desired > > > > features with high-level specs > > > > 2. Companies (or individuals) could "sign up" for a feature and > > > > donate internal engineering time to implementing the feature > > > > 3. The Struts community would review then commit the feature > > > > 4. The release notes for that version and perhaps somewhere on the > > > > website would note who gets credit for the feature > > > > > > > > This would help those that want to donate time what features are > most > > > > needed by the community and give them a way to receive recognition > for > > > > their work in a very public way. A key component in this > proposal > > > > is the way credit is given to the work, something that might > encourage > > > > the marketing departments of the respective companies. The list of > > > > desired features is also important as it ensures their effort will > not > > > > be in vain, and it also implies the support of the Struts dev > > > > community to work to apply the patch in a timely manner. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Don > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > James Mitchell > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- James Mitchell
