Dirk,
It is the first case that applies here i.e.
2. Having the employer invisible either implies one of two:
a) The employer totally does not enter into this and
the committer is acting a 100% as a private, free
individual; and his work does not pertain or is
associated in any way with his other endeavors.
Marnie
On 3/6/08, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
>
> > Several of our project (Qpid) memebers are legally in a difficult
> > position
> > disclosing their employer in Apache world. They have signed a legal
> > document, in order to be allowed to contribute to Apache, and thus
> > this is
> > not a simple preference issue.
>
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> 1. As to avoid having trust or distrust affecting the community
> (i.e. some rot setting in at a later stage) I would
> completely ignore these people as adding to the 'diversity' and in
> fact advise to assume the 'worst' - and treat them as one block.
>
> I.e. they are _counter_ to the diversity you want to show.
>
> That is the most robust approach. As information leaks and attitude
> shift the situation only gets better and more trust is build.
>
> 2. Having the employer invisible either implies one of two:
>
> a) The employer totally does not enter into this and
> the committer is acting a 100% as a private, free
> individual; and his work does not pertain or is
> associated in any way with his other endeavors.
>
> b) The employer is in fact part of the 'agreement' - and
> hence known to the foundation.
>
> In the last case we, that is the foundation, would need to figure out if
> we can act as such a 'clearing house' - and would allow such provided
> the
> CCLA's are visible to the members.
>
> I personally would be very wary of this though. As ultimately the CCLA
> and software grants carry a lot of sensitive rights - and part of
> standing within our role in the current open source/standards
> ecosystem has been gained by allowing full downstream visibility.
>
> Dw
>
>
