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 that simply cannot understand why they cannot control a project, why they cannot determine the roadmap, why they can't get a list of users or scan the developers mailing list for business opportunities and scam business offerings. This is especially bad when, if they have large enough wallets, they simply can do all of the above that they want simply by creating a "foundation" at LF.
So I don't agree w/ Sam when he says the responses could be "taken along the lines of 'you should have known'" because this is something that the so-called graybeards have been telling lots of people all the time... it is, in fact, one of the major challenges for the ASF to ensure that people grok how we work. Heck, it's why we have the Incubator for crying out loud, why we do "What Is The Apache Way" talks: because this stuff is NOT implicitly clear. When, at the same time, you are "fighting" much larger players, with much deeper pockets and much louder voices and significant financial reasons to maintain this "confusion", then it is even harder and more vital that we take these opportunities and answer them with all the passion, honesty and vigor that we can. And we do all this for non-financially motivated reasons! > 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. > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > Thanks > > G --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
