Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

Am 18. April 2019 03:04:45 MESZ schrieb Griselda Cuevas : >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 important influencer in >the >D topic. Two more discussions you might find interesting:

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:04:45PM -0700, Griselda Cuevas wrote: > 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 important influencer in the > D topic. Thank you for sharing your motivation for asking the question. I

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

Alex Harui wrote on 4/19/19 1:06 AM: ...snip... > Branding could dictate some policy to prevent a NASCAR uniform look to the > project's landing page, but since corporations are effectively contributing > significant money to the ASF by paying folks to commit code, why shouldn't > they deserve

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

Thanks for this thread. I am learning a lot from these perspectives. At the risk of adding noise, I'll share mine. I first want to state my appreciation for how ASF governance works and how it differs from other foundations. I did not really understand this when I started and it is one of my

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 12:02 PM Alex Harui wrote: > > I’m sorry, I do not understand these responses. I did not mention > advertising, only attribution. I did not mention paying to get listed in > the NOTICE. These negative assumptions discourage my motivation to > contribute to these

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

I’m sorry, I do not understand these responses. I did not mention advertising, only attribution. I did not mention paying to get listed in the NOTICE. These negative assumptions discourage my motivation to contribute to these kinds of discussions. It is my understanding that the

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

On 4/19/2019 12:06 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > From the peanut gallery: > > IMO, big corporations have enough money to get their names out there and > influence projects if they want to. So, it might be the best use of time to > find ways to limit the impact on the projects instead of trying to

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:03 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 2019, at 1:06 AM, Alex Harui > > wrote: > > > > Lots of NOTICE files give attribution to the pre-Apache project owner. Why > > not let other companies add their logo to NOTICE if it is

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

Hi, > Lots of NOTICE f iles give attribution to the pre-Apache project owner. Why > not let other companies add their logo to NOTICE if it is important to them? > > Maybe allow these two things and see if that makes the corporations happy. IMO (and policy states that )NOTICE is there for

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

> On Apr 19, 2019, at 1:06 AM, Alex Harui > wrote: > > > Lots of NOTICE files give attribution to the pre-Apache project owner. Why > not let other companies add their logo to NOTICE if it is important to them? > NOTICE has a specific reason for existence

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

From the peanut gallery: IMO, big corporations have enough money to get their names out there and influence projects if they want to. So, it might be the best use of time to find ways to limit the impact on the projects instead of trying to prevent them from using their names. The ASF tends

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

This is a tricky one. If everything is working as it should, corporate affiliation is irrelevant. However, employment is a factor in a number of different ways a project can start to head in the wrong direction. For example, employees of a company always giving priority to reviewing and

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

On 4/17/2019 11:27 AM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: It brings clarity to project roadmap and dependencies. Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions faster and gives companies the ability to

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

Another item about the below is that I think it reflects, on many many levels, the current "understanding" or "interpretation" of open source that is being perpetuated by such entities as the Linux Foundation and believed by several companies as well. I see on almost a daily basis companies

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

Yes. Corporate affiliation is really immaterial, and should be. Another reason for this is that one's job may, and often does, change. Who you are, and what you do, and how you provide "value" to a project, should not and does not. To associate one's merit with one's employment means that every

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

>Knowing what companies are investing in a given area, allows users & >contributors know who to contact to move their own contributions faster and >gives companies the ability to accept user suggestions. I am not a purist by any stretch, but I don't see this benefiting even the

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:54 PM Joan Touzet wrote: > > On 2019-04-17 9:04 p.m., Griselda Cuevas wrote: [snip] > > > Thank you! > > And thank you for raising something that I've been too nervous to bring > up on my own. Yes, thank you Gris for bringing this up. And also thank you Joan for being

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

> 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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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,

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

> 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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

Re: [Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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

[Discuss] Attributing contributions to commercial vendors investing in projects

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