Here is a quick initial definition. I believe that it is the
committer's responsibility to properly state their affiliation. For
instance, if a committer contributed to a project and it was approved
by their employer (company A) but not actually part of their
immediate duties I wouldn't necessarily expect them to have to say I
am affiliated with Company A and they might identify themselves as
independent. An underpinning of this definition is trust.
Affiliation: For purposes of identifying a community's diversity and
independence it is useful to identify a committer's afiliation. It
is useful to disclose to the community if a committer is working on a
project as part of their primary job responsibility. This can be
loosely defined to mean paid to work on a project more than 4-hours a
day. This affiliation can be used to identify a project that would
be in jeopardy should an organization that is supporting developers
should those developers time be redirected to unrelated efforts.
On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
I do think it would be good to clarify the meaning of affiliations,
and make it more flexible.
This topic has been kicked around for a while. Is there some
consensus that affiliation is project-specific, such that a
committer can be independent on project A while working on another
project B as their "day job"?
