(PMC of Apache projects I mean of course) On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:11 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > Since you wanted to have a smooth and nice cooperation - as a > courtesy, Is it possible that you explicitly put ASF there and > obligations that are not valid (especially when you reach out to PMCs > of Airflow projects)? > > I think otherwise it puts too much responsibility on individuals to > check what their organisations are ok with. It puts them in a bit of > an awkward position where something is "required" but "not really". > > This might also lead to a number of legal questions from those people > (very few people read past legal issues and discussions in JIRA) which > we want to avoid. > Also some people might not realise that their organisations are not > aware of the requirements and they might accidentally break those. > > A bit of context here why I am interested and discussing it. It's not > that I am arguing against Tidelift or anything like that. I am just > very transparent and try to get this whole cooperation between > contributors and stakeholders hashed out and defined in simple and > straightforward terms that are beneficial for the Foundation. > > The good of ASF, its longevity, values, and vendor-neutrality is an > absolute key for me and top priority. > > So I wanted to make sure that what we will come up, will be completely > neutral and that many, many 3rd-parties like tidelift can make use of > it - equally. > > Over the last few months I've been thinking, discussing and drafting > with a number of people and organisations (and lawyers of mine) a > missing piece in the puzzle. Likely soon I will make a proposal to > legal/board and comms about having a simple page for > "contributor/stakeholder" relationships, where the ASF will actually > explicitly provide some DOs/DOnts and looser guidelines for such a > cooperation (the above will be one of DON'T). When/If it happens - we > will propose and discuss it here, at legal-discuss and finally if that > succeeds - it might be presented to the board. > > Would that help if you have such a page and explicitly refer to it in > case of ASF and you could refer to it explicitly ? > > J. > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:41 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > > The wording now basically says that anything listed as an obligation can > > be ignored if it conflicts with your organization’s policy requirements. So > > that should make it possible for individuals to agree to work with Tidelift > > without the PMC agreeing to anything. > > > > That said, I personally have no problem having a project support page > > that lists the individuals who accept GitHub sponsorships. Likewise I > > think it would be OK to list the people who are accepting sponsorship from > > Tidelift. But it is not a requirement on a project to do either of these > > things. > > > > Ralph > > > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 2022, at 1:47 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > I think the door was always open to work with Tidelift by the individuals. > > > This has never been a problem (and recruiting individual PMC members > > > by you was never a problem either). > > > > > > However, yes, I do have a question now. I am actually - as a PMC > > > member of Apache Airflow interested. You have one of your customers > > > here, actually :). > > > > > > The statement in your document is a bit vague and seems to workaround > > > the original problem a bit. > > > > > > 1) Are you going to ask the individuals in your contract to put the > > > logo of Tidelift on the project's website / github project etc. (in > > > what form) ? > > > 2) Or will you ask them so that they personally as individuals mention > > > they are sponsored by Tidelift ? > > > > > > The former is still not good for ASF IMHO (nothing changed), the > > > latter has always been good (nothing changed either). > > > > > > So for me it looks like nothing has changed, you just stopped > > > requiring individuals to mention Tidelift in the PMC docs (this was > > > the original problem)? > > > > > > Is my understanding correct? > > > > > > Let's take Apache Airflow. What would be a requirement if you want to > > > work with me? > > > > > > And yes - I am perfectly fine to discuss it in public - transparency > > > is super important to me and I always disclose what is the scope and > > > requirements of cooperation I do on open-source (I think this is > > > crucial in the OSS contracts). > > > > > > J. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:42 PM Joshua Simmons > > > <joshua.simm...@tidelift.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Jarek, > > >> > > >>> 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. > > >> > > >> Oh, thank you for asking the question. I could have been more clear! > > >> > > >> No action requested or response expected, I sent this follow up as a > > >> courtesy to the community since it generated so much conversation across > > >> multiple mailing lists (including this one) back in the January-March > > >> time > > >> frame :o) > > >> > > >> That being said, any project committers or PMC members who want to > > >> explore > > >> working with Tidelift to underwrite their work: the door is now open! Our > > >> subscribers use over 1000 org.apache namespace packages, which means > > >> income > > >> is available for every one of those. Folks who are interested should > > >> discuss with fellow PMC members and are welcome to reach out to me. > > >> > > >> I'll be proactively reaching out to some PMCs, but I want to be > > >> respectful > > >> and not gum up this mailing list with recruitment efforts. > > >> > > >> If folks have questions or concerns, I'm here to help! > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Josh > > >> > > >> Josh Simmons (he/they), Sr. Principal Foundations Advocate @ Tidelift > > >> <https://tidelift.com/> > > >> @joshsimmons <https://twitter.com/joshsimmons> | @josh:josh.tel > > >> <https://josh.tel/@josh> | bluesomewhere on IRC > > >> TZ: US/Pacific; UTC-07:00 Mar-Nov; UTC-08:00 Nov-Mar > > >> ad astra per aspera 🚀 > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 5:50 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> 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 > > >>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
