On 2019-04-17 9:04 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote:
I want to understand how we
see and value the topic since I consider it an important influencer in the
D topic. More clearly - some projects are not diverse on the commercial
vendor affiliation dimension, which can create an environment not so
On 4/17/19 6:05 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:04 PM Joan Touzet wrote:
I'm generally in agreement with Rich, Jim, Shane, Sam and the other
"grey beards" who have responded on this thread already. We recognize
the individual, not the company, and the individual gets the
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:05 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> This comes up frequently, and the end result of the discussion
> generally is along the lines of:
> at most, that data should be taken as an indicator suggesting when
> deeper investigation is warranted. Even then, it should be something
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:04 PM Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> I'm generally in agreement with Rich, Jim, Shane, Sam and the other
> "grey beards" who have responded on this thread already. We recognize
> the individual, not the company, and the individual gets the merit.
Meta comment: looking at the
I just want to let everyone know that I am reading you and I acknowledge
and appreciate all opinions here. I need time to continue the discussion on
a few ideas I see here.
To clarify, I am *not* proposing we do this, I want to understand how we
see and value the topic since I consider it an
Sorry for the self-reply, this sentence:
On 2019-04-17 18:04, Joan Touzet wrote:
> The danger in writing it down is that it will change people's
> opinions of .
should read:
> the situation by implying the corporate relationship itself is what
> is driving the decision making, when that may not
Sorry for the self-reply, this sentence:
On 2019-04-17 18:04, Joan Touzet wrote:
> The danger in writing it down is that it will change people's
> opinions of .
should read:
> the situation by implying the corporate relationship itself is what
> is driving the decision making, when that may not
> Some employers actually employ people from the community to work on Open
Source projects.
Sorry for wordy email, but this topic is something I really care about and
I assume some (employed) contributors don't understand it.
I'm employed, and I use both my work and free time to contribute. But
I'm generally in agreement with Rich, Jim, Shane, Sam and the other
"grey beards" who have responded on this thread already. We recognize
the individual, not the company, and the individual gets the merit.
That said, there are always rumours and scuttlebutt floating around of
this sort: "If
The ASF is an entity which is focused on the individual contributor... all
"merit" obtained is obtained by the *contributor* and not their companies.
There are some exceptions, such as the code donation of a large chunk of code:
that can be, and is, "attributed" to a company. But in general,
> On Apr 17, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> imagine some ways to recognize corporations, but Rich has a hugely
> important point above: only individuals are recognized as committers,
> PMC members, or ASF Members - never companies.
>
> So while the corporate linking guidelines
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:17 PM Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> Rich Bowen wrote on 4/17/19 3:08 PM:
> > By policy and long-standing tradition, no. Companies do not participate
> > in projects. Individuals participate in projects.
> >
> > It's possible I misunderstand the question, but this is something
Hi,
I saw a few examples of how corporate employer's emails had a negative
influence on the community health and good ideas were rejected.
So (in any kind) stating that Apache Project X roadmap can be driven by
company Y (or companies Y and Z) it a dangerous thing.
Volunteers will never join the
Rich Bowen wrote on 4/17/19 3:08 PM:
> By policy and long-standing tradition, no. Companies do not participate
> in projects. Individuals participate in projects.
>
> It's possible I misunderstand the question, but this is something we
> have always discouraged.
I think it's a bigger question
By policy and long-standing tradition, no. Companies do not participate
in projects. Individuals participate in projects.
It's possible I misunderstand the question, but this is something we
have always discouraged.
On 4/17/19 2:27 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote:
Hi ComDev,
What are your
Hi ComDev,
What are your opinions/best practices on attributing contributions to
commercial vendors who support an Apache project. I recently had a few
discussions with folks in OSS and they convinced me on this being a good
idea because it has a two-fold purpose:
1.
It brings clarity to
On 17/04/2019 04:11, Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> Hi Mark - for some reason it says I do not have permissions to see the link
> you sent.
> My ID is gris
Sorry. Not the best link and I hadn't quite got the default permissions
right.
Try this link:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI
17 matches
Mail list logo
