> 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 contribute as an individual, I represent my own view when I participate in PMC discussion because I do believe in hats concept when I communicate with others I wear the hat of a community member: committer and PMC. This allows all fellows to feel free, then they have a disagreement. If we have a disagreement we, as a community, can build a consensus to find out the best possible decision. I think it is a key thing that allowed a number of ASF projects to become leading projects in their area. I also think companies can benefit from donating part of their code to open-source because a community can bring vision and ideas on how to make things better. Mentioning companies is possible somewhere in the project committers list. But it is not a good practice to stress it in emails signatures/use corporate email address/or pay too much attention to an employer on website. This can make others feel that if you employed by company A, you may have more power/influence in the community - it is not the case in the ASF. I think the responsibility of every project PMC is to avoid it. As for mentioning personal profile, probably it is not prohibited to add a link to the linked-in profile in the website field in Apache Directory. Some communities add a reference to contributors' profile in the list of committers. But still, it is always made in the context of the individual, not any kind of company contribution. чт, 18 апр. 2019 г. в 00:16, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: > 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, the > focus is on the *contributor*. This is because we want to create a healthy, > viable pool of volunteer contributors no matter WHO signs their paychecks, > and projects which are truly independent upon any single company or set of > companies. We have seen how this can end, and it is not pretty. > > There are plenty of ways that companies can get attribution by the ASF, > but the normal day-to-day contributions are not it. > > > On Apr 17, 2019, at 2:27 PM, Griselda Cuevas <g...@google.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > 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 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 accept user suggestions. > > But the roadmap of a project is NOT set nor determined by a company. Nor > even by the ASF. It is set by the project community, with guidance and > stewardship of the PMC. Users and contributors just need to know to contact > the ASF, not investigate what companies are "involved". Any user > suggestions and feedback should be directed to the ASF and the project and > NOT to any companies. This is very important: the ASF cannot in any way be > beneficial or partial to any company. The ASF and our projects are, AND > MUST BE, fiercely independent. > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > Gives recognition to the companies (or individuals) who are investing > in > > Airflow. > > This in the long term adds value to the project brand itself as it’s > > easy to demonstrate who is using/contributing to the project. > > Again, this is a project task, not a company one. > > > > > > > So my question is: Have you seen this done in a project? If yes, how they > > do it? Would you support this? > > > > I want to clarify that I understand that Open Source is about the > > individuals and not the companies, however I also see the need for > > transparency for the sake of project agility. > > > Well, APACHE is all about individuals... It is what separates us quite > markedly from other FOSS organizations and foundations. Linux Foundation, > for example, is perfectly OK with fuzzing the line between community and > companies and even, at times, weighing the scales in favor of companies > when needed. The ASF never has, never does, and never will. Because we are, > quite frankly, ALL about the individual. To truly understand the ASF, one > MUST grok this. > > > > > Thanks > > > > G > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
