On Jul 1, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 1 July 2011 11:06, Stefane Fermigier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >> >>> I am not saying you *cannot* credit employers who support their staff >>> volunteering here. >> >> Once again, you're denying the reality here. Olivier and I are not >> "volunteering" here. > > As a mentor I am stating the language we use. *everyone* is a > volunteer here.
If your language is just some newspeak disconnected from the reality, I don't care about your language. We are not all volunteers. I am not, by the single fact that I'm paid by Nuxeo and the EU. And BTW this whole discussion is taking the "fun" part out the equation, so I'm doubly not a volunteer. > It might seem like a nuance (or even a fundamental misunderstanding at > this stage) but it is very important to the way Apache projects are > developed. It's one of the mechanisms we use to ensure that nobody can > "own" an Apache project. Who are you accusing of wanting to "own" the project ? > Everyone is expected to act as an individual, > in the best interests of the project and its community first, > sometimes this means going against the short term best interests of > their employer in order to ensure the long term health of the project > (which I assume is important to your employer). Except that there is absolutely no proof that it does. > If you are going to be at ApacheCon you might like to attend my "Can I > depend on software built by volunteers?" talk. I address these issues > in detail and explain why it works like this and why the word > "volunteer" is often misunderstood. I won't, and I don't agree with this vision. I think this vision hinders the progress of open source, because the answer of your question is obviously "no". Of course, with *your* definition of "volunteer" maybe it's "yes" (or more probably, "yes, sometimes"), but since most people are using a different definition, you're just shooting yourself (and the open source community) in the foot by going this path. Actually, even by your definition, there are projects that are made by "volunteers" (e.g. Apache Adbera) who are in such a pityfull state that I'm very sorry that I do depend on them. But it's not the debate here. >>> One way of crediting employers without >>> having to create a whole raft of red tape is have a page on which >>> committers can optionally add their employers details (with nofollow >>> links) >> >> Yeah right. This is absolutely unacceptable for me. > > Well, that's up to the community to resolve. I thought there was a rule? So now you're telling me that it's up to the community (I'm assuming you're meaning, the Stanbol community here) to decide. Great. Let's vote. > However, I will point out > that it is highly unlikely for the IIPMC (of which I am a member) to > allow links without nofollow. It is not allowed for anyone else > (including most classes of financial sponsors). Which is in my opinion stupid on your part, but that is your (ASF) problem, not mine. >>> . This means the moment you vote someone in their employer gets >>> credit. Another way (which is my preference) is you have a page >>> listing *users* of the product (with nofollow links). This means >>> everyone can submit a patch and have their employer listed. >> >> Come on. The EU is giving 6 MEUR to this project. Nuxeo is giving 50 KEUR. >> There is clearly a hierarchy. > > There is no hierarchy in a sustainable Apache project (that means a > TLP, not an incubating project). > > The EU money will run out, Nuxeo may decide this isn't a direction > they want to go in. What then? We're not there yet. There is still 1 year 1/2 to go. > The community needs to expand to be sustainable beyond the funding of > the EU and a few other partners. That's why Stanbol is in incubation. > All actions today need to prepare for the day when the money runs out. Nope. We have other priorities, first of them being for the project to be successful in the EU sense. I don't care if the project is a long time success if by doing so means that we (Nuxeo) don't get the final payments from the EU, or if we don't get the business benefits from our participation in the project. (Of course, this is a rethorical observation, as I'm sure we can have both, that's the reason why I voted for the Apache Incubation - but I also warned against the risks of the Apache "bureaucracy"). >>> The ASF does not single out individual companies. If its not enough to >>> get a load of free volunteer time on the software they want to use >>> then they can do public speaking, they can publicly praise their >>> Apache committers. They can be *seen* to engage with the project both >>> here and at public events, like ApacheCon. >> >> I don't care about the ASF. I'm not even a member. > > Membership is earned. It cannot be bought or requested. Another non-issue. I didn't asked or try to buy ASF membership. > You may not > care about the ASF but I assume you care about the code being produced > in this specific ASF project. Do you want it to succeed in the long > term? If so then you need to participate in ways that have been > proven, in over 100 world leading projects, to work consistently. Can you cite an example of a project that *failed* because the outgoing links didn't have the rel=nofollow attribute? Probably not. So you're just playing with false logic. "100 successful open source projects did put rel=nofollow on their links, so if you don't put rel=nofollow, you will fail." Of course: 1. This is cargo-cult logic at best. 2. There are thousands of successful open source projects who didn't put rel=nofollow on their links. What do you say about them? > There is no need for you to work towards being a member, Non-issue, again. S. -- Stefane Fermigier, Founder and Chairman, Nuxeo Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM) http://www.nuxeo.com/ - +33 1 40 33 79 87 - http://twitter.com/sfermigier Join the Nuxeo Group on LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/groups?gid=43314 New Nuxeo release: http://nuxeo.com/dm54 "There's no such thing as can't. You always have a choice."
