Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Martin Ritchie wrote: On 06/03/2008, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel Ok I have a few comments in response to the findings: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community of the project than identifying who is paying the bills. The whole project worked very hard to pull together two servers and five client libraries for the M2 release all talking AMQP 0-8. We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. What is the next step on this? Does the concern still exist or should we take the next step. regards Carl.
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 07 March 2008 03:04, Daniel Kulp wrote: That all said, I'm NOT on the IPMC. Thus, my thoughts don't really count other than to provide insight based on MY experiences. I don't have a binding vote. But your view is highly appreciated. +1 - robert
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 06 March 2008, Martin Ritchie wrote: snip We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. And nothing stops you from doing all of that while still in the incubator while working on trying to furthur diversify your community. Working with other AMQP products could be a perfect opportunity to find other interested people and get them involved with Qpid. Why rush? +1 From experience with CXF, after we got 2.0 and 2.0.1 out the door, we thought the same way. Hey, we worked hard to get the TCK passing, integrated with Geronimo, and two releases out, we're ready to go! but Jim (one of our mentors) still had concerns about diversity. Thus, we stuck with it and worked hard on getting other people more involved. It has paid off as we have added several very good folks that have brought fresh ideas and perspectives to the project. If we HAD graduated, I'm not sure if we would have spent the time/effort on the mentoring and such that was required to bring them on board. We've learned a lot in the process. In hind sight, Jim was completely correct. Part of the Apache way you talk about is being concious of things like that. IMHO community building is by far the toughest skill in open source. for a project to be viable in the long run, it needs to learn to recruit and mentor new developers. this takes effort but it's rewarding to see other people with fresh ideas pick up a project and take it forward. it's great to see someone you helped take the first steps here at apache progress all the way to member. prefecting this may well take a lifetime but the basics can be learn by some hard work. engaging a wider audience and community then inducting them to share in the development of a project is the major reason why closed source projects should choose to open up at apache. the IPMC has failed unless we equip projects with the lessons needed to thrive in an open development environment. the reason why we examine projects which arrive from a closed source background more closely is that they have not had the chance to develop these skills before arrival. these cannot easily to learnt by reading but only by doing. so we ask projects to learn by doing: go out and diversify. - robert
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Scott Deboy wrote: Does ASF need proof that a transfer of intellectual property ownership occurred? In your CLA - you attest that you have that right. If you don't - it's on you to remedy it. The ASF doesn't broker relationships between developers and their employers, clients, or spouses :) So the CCLA exists for those who's employment agreements would otherwise cause them to violate their claims made via their CLA contract. Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On Friday 07 March 2008 03:04, Daniel Kulp wrote: That all said, I'm NOT on the IPMC. Thus, my thoughts don't really count other than to provide insight based on MY experiences. I don't have a binding vote. But your view is highly appreciated. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On 06/03/2008, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel Ok I have a few comments in response to the findings: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community of the project than identifying who is paying the bills. The whole project worked very hard to pull together two servers and five client libraries for the M2 release all talking AMQP 0-8. We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. -- Martin Ritchie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Martin Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/03/2008, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel I believe if a committer has signed the required legal documents then thats all what matters. If they are uncomfortable disclosing their employer then perhaps we should respect that. What is important is that these folks are contributing to the project in a legal manner. The last thing we want is to discourage people from contributing. As martin has pointed out, looking at the last 6 months and just the trunk is not a fair evaluation of diversity. We should also not forget the significant contributions made by the following folks in the last year or two. Off the top of my head. Colin Crist - Hermes JMS integration Kevin Smith - SSL patch for the java broker. Steve Vinoski - Maven build system Tomas Restrepo - .NET client. There was also a few individuals who made patches for the python client to get it interoperating with other open source implementations. I am very optimistic that our community will continue to grow with more contributions as we increase our visibility and efforts to integrate with other projects like Synapse, Axis2, Tuscany, CXF etc.. Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat blog: http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ Ok I have a few comments in response to the findings: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community of the project than identifying who is paying the bills. The whole project worked very hard to pull together two servers and five client libraries for the M2 release all talking AMQP 0-8. We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. -- Martin Ritchie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: (qpid) Diversity
For the qpid folks who don't want to divulge their employer: are they working on the project as part of their employment? If so, it would appear we need a CCLA, correct? If we don't know the committer's employer (and they're working on the project as an employee), we can't determine if a CCLA is on file. From http://www.apache.org/licenses/ --- For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need for every developer to sign their own CLA as an individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the CCLA. Scott Deboy -Original Message- From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:48 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Martin Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/03/2008, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel I believe if a committer has signed the required legal documents then thats all what matters. If they are uncomfortable disclosing their employer then perhaps we should respect that. What is important is that these folks are contributing to the project in a legal manner. The last thing we want is to discourage people from contributing. As martin has pointed out, looking at the last 6 months and just the trunk is not a fair evaluation of diversity. We should also not forget the significant contributions made by the following folks in the last year or two. Off the top of my head. Colin Crist - Hermes JMS integration Kevin Smith - SSL patch for the java broker. Steve Vinoski - Maven build system Tomas Restrepo - .NET client. There was also a few individuals who made patches for the python client to get it interoperating with other open source implementations. I am very optimistic that our community will continue to grow with more contributions as we increase our visibility and efforts to integrate with other projects like Synapse, Axis2, Tuscany, CXF etc.. Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat blog: http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ Ok I have a few comments in response to the findings: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community of the project than identifying who is paying the bills. The whole project worked very hard to pull together two servers and five client libraries for the M2 release all talking AMQP 0-8. We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. -- Martin Ritchie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On Thursday 06 March 2008, Martin Ritchie wrote: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric That's fair. I forgot about the work on the branches. That's a very valid point.Updated list with branches added from Jan 1: Alan ConwayRH 84 Aidan Skinner ?51 Arnaud Simon RH 48 Andrew StitcherRH Carl Trieloff RH 6 Gordon Sim RH 40 Jim Meyering ? John O'HaraJPMC Marnie McCormack JPMC (maternity) Martin Ritchie JMPC 42 Kim van der Riet RH Nuno SantosRH 6 Rafael Schloming RH 56 Rajith Attapattu RH 24 Robert Godfrey JPMC 14 Robert Greig. JPMC Rupert Smith ?36 264 RH 143 Non-RH Back to Nov 1: Alan ConwayRH 167 Aidan Skinner 51 Arnaud Simon RH 105 Andrew StitcherRH 5 Carl Trieloff RH 22 Gordon Sim RH 107 Jim Meyering John O'HaraJPMC Marnie McCormack JPMC (maternity) Martin Ritchie JMPC 81 Kim van der Riet RH 10 Nuno SantosRH 7 Rafael Schloming RH 60 Rajith Attapattu RH 58 Robert Godfrey JPMC 20 Robert Greig. JPMC Rupert Smith63 541 RH 215 Non-RH - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. Yes, lower numbers, but they should still be relatively proportional as it should be just as poor for RH folks as for non RH folks, right? The issue isn't the number of commits, it's who is doing them. Anyway, I added a 4 months set shown above. Yes, # of commits is not a good metric as different people work different ways. Example: I tend to commit small things several times a day. If I find a spelling mistake, it gets committed. Other people save things up and do larger commits. It's all personal. The thing that the IPMC needs to know more about are trends. Is the community getting better or worse from a diversity standpoint. That IS subjective to some extent and each IPMC member may interpret the data differently, but the point is they need the data.Thus, having the 6 month, 4 month, and 2 month numbers is a start. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. Fine. I included the entire trunk + branches dirs. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103 RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. It IS something to worry about if all the Non-Aligned folks really are aligned together under one entity. The questions that each IPMC member needs to answer for themselves based on all the metrics are: 1) If RedHat decides tomorrow to pull all it's engineers off of qpid, would the project survive? 2) If the entity behind the non-aligns gets bought out by another entity that has no interest in AMQP and pulls the engineers off, will the project survive? Those are the things the IPMC must consider (and the board if graduating top level) as it affects the long term viability of the project. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. But it helps provide insite into the above questions, so it is helpful. Other things that aren't even mentioned in this are things like participation on the dev list, documentation updates, wiki updates, JIRA cleanups, etc Those are all ALSO important metrics and maybe some of the folks above are more valuable in areas other than the raw code. There are lots of roles in a community, the code is just a single metric amoungst many. For example: http://markmail.org/search/?q=qpid+type%3Adevelopment+date%3A200709-200803 is another metric. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community
RE: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Does ASF need proof that a transfer of intellectual property ownership occurred? Scott Deboy -Original Message- From: Robert Greig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity On 06/03/2008, Scott Deboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the qpid folks who don't want to divulge their employer: are they working on the project as part of their employment? If so, it would appear we need a CCLA, correct? I do not believe so since those employees have signed legal documents with the employer where the employer has transferred the intellectual property ownership to the employee. Therefore those committers are effectively working as private individuals. RG - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On 06/03/2008, Scott Deboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the qpid folks who don't want to divulge their employer: are they working on the project as part of their employment? If so, it would appear we need a CCLA, correct? I do not believe so since those employees have signed legal documents with the employer where the employer has transferred the intellectual property ownership to the employee. Therefore those committers are effectively working as private individuals. RG - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
All, 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. Regards, Marnie On 3/5/08, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Davanum Srinivas wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Carl, Do they *all* have CCLA's? absolutely.
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On 05/03/2008, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marnie McCormack wrote: All, Several of our project (Qpid) memebers are legally in a difficult position disclosing their employer in Apache world. Does that mean they are contributing in their private time rather than as part of their jobs? If so, they should be considered as independents. If contributing to the project is part of their job responsibilities, they should be required to disclose the employer. If the actual employers cannot be disclosed, perhaps it would be possible to list the different companies anonymously? e.g. Company 1 employs Adrian, Barbara, Cedric Company 2 employs Peter, Quentin, Rick This might help with determining diversity. They have signed a legal document, in order to be allowed to contribute to Apache, and thus this is not a simple preference issue. My own employer's requirements are something like must not create the impression to act on behalf of the employer. It doesn't say is not allowed to disclose the employer. A statement like independent contributor, working for XXX in the day job would satisfy that. If it's just one or two of that category, I wouldn't care about the employer at all. But previous postings suggest that a lot of people are working for the same employer, and that's something that should be clarified. Maybe it's a club of spare time developers that met at work and are now jointly working on Qpid? cheers, Roland - 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]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Another option would be to not consider the people that cannot disclose their employers when considering the diversity of the project. If there are 15 people, and 5 cannot disclose their employer, only consider the diversity of the remaining people. Kind of the err on the side of caution approach. It may make it harder for a project to be diverse enough, but I'm not sure if that's actually a bad thing. There is probably still an issue if a very large number of people on the project fall into the cannot disclose list. I would hope that isn't the case though. Dan On Wednesday 05 March 2008, sebb wrote: On 05/03/2008, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marnie McCormack wrote: All, Several of our project (Qpid) memebers are legally in a difficult position disclosing their employer in Apache world. Does that mean they are contributing in their private time rather than as part of their jobs? If so, they should be considered as independents. If contributing to the project is part of their job responsibilities, they should be required to disclose the employer. If the actual employers cannot be disclosed, perhaps it would be possible to list the different companies anonymously? e.g. Company 1 employs Adrian, Barbara, Cedric Company 2 employs Peter, Quentin, Rick This might help with determining diversity. They have signed a legal document, in order to be allowed to contribute to Apache, and thus this is not a simple preference issue. My own employer's requirements are something like must not create the impression to act on behalf of the employer. It doesn't say is not allowed to disclose the employer. A statement like independent contributor, working for XXX in the day job would satisfy that. If it's just one or two of that category, I wouldn't care about the employer at all. But previous postings suggest that a lot of people are working for the same employer, and that's something that should be clarified. Maybe it's a club of spare time developers that met at work and are now jointly working on Qpid? cheers, Roland - 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] -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
sebb wrote: On 05/03/2008, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marnie McCormack wrote: All, Several of our project (Qpid) memebers are legally in a difficult position disclosing their employer in Apache world. Does that mean they are contributing in their private time rather than as part of their jobs? If so, they should be considered as independents. If contributing to the project is part of their job responsibilities, they should be required to disclose the employer. If the actual employers cannot be disclosed, perhaps it would be possible to list the different companies anonymously? e.g. Company 1 employs Adrian, Barbara, Cedric Company 2 employs Peter, Quentin, Rick This might help with determining diversity. This could work, Carl.
RE: FW: (qpid) Diversity
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. Mind you, they are obligated by their CLA to ensure that if a CCLA is required for them to be able to act in accordance with the claims made by them when they submit the CLA, that such CCLA is also filed. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Roland Weber wrote: If contributing to the project is part of their job responsibilities, they should be required to disclose the employer. That has not been made a stringent requirement, but see my response to Melanie for what *is* a requirement. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Carl, Do they *all* have CCLA's? - -- dims Scott Deboy wrote: | I'm curious what other incubator folks think about qpid's plan for disclosing the organizational diversity of their committership/PMC (or if this is even a requirement). | | Scott Deboy | COMOTIV SYSTEMS | 111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950 | Portland, OR 97201 | | Telephone: 503.224.7496 | Cell: 503.997.1367 | Fax:503.222.0185 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.comotivsystems.com | | | | -Original Message- | From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tue 3/4/2008 1:08 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: Diversity | | Scott Deboy wrote: | Since there is a significant amount of corporate support in qpid, I'd | like to see the breakdown of that support in the committership and | PMC. If this was discussed previously, can you direct me to the thread? | | Thanks | | Scott Deboy | | Scott, | | I know from past discussions that some members of Qpid are not allowed | to disclose who they work for. I am sure they will comment. There is no | secret that I work for Red Hat. As I know this is going to come up, to | get through this we might need to let people say there company name or | not one of the above... | | does that work. The goal is to show one company does not have all the seats. | | There is a thread with the broken out, but it does not include company | names. | regards, | Carl. | | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFHzcJQgNg6eWEDv1kRAvR8AJ9BAsR53+2VP3xGJZZjWYcKH4dY7gCfZp2T Jwreg49mfXARjaUlClfFF3U= =5Dp7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Davanum Srinivas wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Carl, Do they *all* have CCLA's? absolutely. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
