I have a question - what exactly do you expect here? What is your ask and proposal ? I read the docs and I have not found any action that I or anyone else here could take here - (possibly that's why you did not get any response) - I looked at it several days ago but I could not find anything I could do for one. Now, the message popped up in my reminder and I see I was not the only one.
J. On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:06 PM Joshua Simmons <joshua.simm...@tidelift.com> wrote: > Hi folks, I wanted to follow up on this thread to let everyone know that > we've taken the feedback from ASF community members across a variety of > threads and updated our agreements accordingly. For context, I've attached > a doc summarizing discussion as it stood back in February (including links > to other relevant threads and docs). > > The blocker that was identified was Tidelift's "public notice requirement" > which in most projects would've required an action by the project as a > whole, counter to the (rightful) prohibition of directed development within > ASF-hosted projects. > > To fix that, we added language to all of our agreements that makes it > clear: Tidelift will never ask maintainers to act in contravention with the > policies of their fiscal sponsor. > > > *> If your Project is formally part of a larger open source organization, > such a fiscal sponsor or other non-profit that provides technical > infrastructure to open source projects, Tidelift will not require you to > perform Services that are in conflict with any written requirements of that > organization.* > > The full text of our updated agreement can be found here: > https://support.tidelift.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406309657876-Lifter-agreement > > Our hope is that this removes a barrier between maintainers of ASF-hosted > projects and receiving income from downstream users through Tidelift to > support work which might otherwise go uncompensated. > > If there are any other questions or concerns that folks have, please do > let me know! My role these days is entirely focused on making sure we're > addressing the needs of foundations like the Apache Software Foundation and > its member projects. I've also included co-founder Jeremy Katz on this > email, as doing right by foundations and the projects they host is a > priority for all of Tidelift. > > Onward and upward, > Josh > > Josh Simmons (he/they), Sr. Principal Foundations Advocate @ Tidelift > <https://tidelift.com/> > @joshsimmons <https://twitter.com/joshsimmons> | > joshua.simm...@tidelift.com | bluesomewhere on IRC > TZ: US/Pacific; UTC-07:00 Mar-Nov; UTC-08:00 Nov-Mar > ad astra per aspera [image: 🚀] > > > On 2022/01/11 21:49:59 Ralph Goers wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Recently the Logging Services PMC was approached by Tidelift offering to > provide monetary support either to the project or individual committers. To > obtain that sponsorship the project has to agree to the terms at > https://support.tidelift.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406309657876-Lifter-agreement. > It appears that Struts has accepted this already. > > > > Some PMC members are interested in pursuing this but I am questioning a) > whether the agreement conflicts with ASF practices and b) whether the legal > agreement is too ambiguous. Two ASF members commented on the Logging > Services private list that they had concerns about the agreement. > > > > In response to these concerns I created > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-593. The guidance there > seemed to be that payment to the ASF by Tidelift would not be allowed but > payment to individuals might be. No guidance on the agreement was provided. > It was recommended I post here instead. > > > > In looking for more clarification from Tidelift about their agreement > and who could receive payment we received this response: > > > > Great follow up question, you are spot on. Each of the > individuals on the team page could become a lifter and the funds allocated > for Log4j would be split between them. > > > > Additional pieces of information to add nuance: > > > > * For someone to _start_ lifting a project with Tidelift, the > verification process involves us looking to official sources for > confirmation–such as the team page. After a project is lifted, the > verification process ultimately hinges on open communication between us and > whichever lifter has been nominated to be the primary contact (in full view > of all of the project's lifters so that we know there's shared agreement). > > > > * Funds can be split any way you see fit, evenly or otherwise. > In most cases, we see an even split. In cases where the funds are directed > back to a foundation, 100% of the funds go to the foundation and the share > assigned to the lifters is 0%. > > > > * This approach has allowed us to decouple any individual > project's governance from our own processes, and has proven to be effective > in many different contexts. As we grow, it may well be that our processes > need to evolve, so that's a conversation that I'm open to as we continue > discussing :o) > > > > So it is clear to me that Tidelift requires the project as a whole to > approve the agreement, even though only select individuals may choose to > receive payment, especially since one of the requirements is a public > acknowledgment of Tidelift on one of the project’s sites. > > > > I find this problematic as I cannot reconcile how it is OK for > individuals to receive payment so that the ASF is not officially involved > while at the same time the PMC must approve the agreement for individuals > to be able to accept payment. Furthermore, I still have no idea whether the > terms of the agreement would put a PMC in conflict with ASF policies or > whether the ambiguities in the agreement would put the ASF in a bad place. > I realize the ASF’s argument would be “We have nothing to do with this” but > I suspect that wouldn’t fly since the PMC has to agree to it. > > > > To be clear, I have no idea if this is the correct place to discuss > this. Personally, I was under the impression that a Legal Jira was where > this kind of stuff got resolved. But here I am. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Ralph > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
