On 17/02/2025 08:50, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
Side comment: Is it possible to remove that email that produces a clearly
AI generated nonsense response :) ? It did trigger my answer, but we should
ban it regardless :)
Done.
They also won a free, permanent subscription to the deny list.
But - to the point of your proposal Tison.
I think it's ok for the people who created it to say "I am the original
creator". But I am not sure if that is really something that we should
encourage in a general case. Such encouragement might be seen as something
we expect from our PMCs to do. Which I think we should not.
At best such statements by individuals or companies (and we more often
see them from companies) have a neutral impact on community health. More
often the effects are negative - usually because the motives of the
entity making the statement are an attempt to demonstrate that the nexus
of expertise and/or control lies with them rather than the ASF project.
I do think the project providing its origin story is a good idea. It
allows for a much more complete description of how the project evolved
over time.
It's not doing any harm usually, but I think it's very rare that software
that is donated to ASF is "created" exclusively by a single person - and
singling out that person in the docs, might do a disservice to others who
were involved. Even if they were "managers" who make a decision of allowing
the person to work on the project in their company time, or colleagues who
discussed the initial ideas, reviewed the code and maybe even contributed
in other ways - I would be extremely surprised that you can exclusively
credit single person - even before joining incubation where it's "given".
I can think of lots of cases where this is possible. Even more if you
expand that criteria from a single individual to a single entity (such
as a company).
So if there is even a slight doubt that the person mentioned was absolutely
most instrumental and is consensually agreed by everyone as "THE original
creator", adding that person as "original creator" might do more harm than
good.
It isn't a binary choice between defining an original creator or not
telling the story of the project's history. You can tell the project
history whether or not it can be traced back to an individual. The
important thing it to tell the story as completely, fairly and
impartially as possible. If that includes references to individuals then
that is fine.
There are of course cases when you really can identify the single most
impactful leader. And I think it also - in this case - strengthens what
"ASF" values are - where individuals can be very, very impactful and can
"change the world" - so having those cases explained as the "origin story"
is a good idea as long as it is clear it does not create BDFL style of
decision making in the project (so I would rather only put such an
information on a project page when the person is basically an "emeritus" in
the project and not active or at least obviously just "one of many". Very
similar to what happened with Guido van Rossum in Python.
If an original creator is still involved in a project, I suspect the
project community will be well aware of the fact. I don't think naming
them or not naming them in the project history will make much
difference. What is much more important is how they behave within the
project community and a history document isn't going to change that.
Overall, I think encouraging projects to document their history is a
good thing.
Mark
Case to the point, we do exactly this in Airflow where we mention Maxime as
the original creator, because that's clearly the case that he was the
"mindset" behind it moving the idea from Facebook to AirBnb and leading the
ASF incubation there. [1]. And he is a friend of the project and we invited
him to speak at the Airflow Summit every year, and usually he gets a
shout-out at the opening, but he is no longer actively taking part in
decision making and developing of the project.
[1] https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/project.html
J.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 2:15 AM Moto g pure XT2163DL <
motogpurex...@gmail.com> wrote:
I know for a fact you are not the original Creator or curator cuz I Herbert
do it the 4th and in fact the one who programmed all the tangents in for
that line of purpose because I've never worked with another person on any
of my movies and governments websites connections GPS lines or Internet if
you have any comments or questions about this you should check the location
of every entered character inside of this formatting bill
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 7:22 PM tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
We have seen many threads discussing whether someone self-promotes as
"an original creator of Apache Foo" is suitable.
Today, when I'm reviewing Curator's website, I found an interesting
page [1] that tells the project's history.
[1] https://curator.apache.org/community/history
It clearly states that Jordan Zimmerman is the original author of the
project, which he created while working at Netflix. Later, the project
entered the incubator, graduated, and became a top-level project in
the ASF. All the history after donating is part of Apache Curator.
I would encourage projects to write such a page when they are
interested in identifying the original creators. A project's rationale
explains its motivation, who creates what, and for what reasons (why).
This would be much more valuable content to host. (This is a required
section in the incubation proposal.)
History can continue if anything significant happens after entering
the ASF, but the narrative subject becomes Apache Foo, and we should
be fine with those words.
Best,
tison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
