John, no, not really, sorry. Work is done, credit is given. The form and amount of this credit is between whoever does the work and whoever is being credited. I don't see why is there any third-party to be involved in governing whether or not this credit is "appropriate", "sufficient" or "all encompassing" for the work in question. This is just a credit, it does not affect the quality of work, nor the license (which is 2-clause BSD) nor the copyright holder. Three things that really matter long-time. So "Sponsored by" it's just the message on the t-shirt, having only meaning to whoever produces the piece and whoever wears it, but nothing in particular to the outside world. IMHO.
-Max On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:43 PM, John W. O'Brien <j...@saltant.com> wrote: > On 2018/05/14 20:14, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > What's wrong with a current practice. Why is it of any concern to you, > > John? Just curious that is not very clear from your message. It is like > > someone trying to moderate what people in general or some group in > > particular (e.g. freebsd committers) are allowed to put on their > > t-shirts just because you find it offensive or inappropriate. > > I don't find crediting sponsors offensive nor inappropriate. Quite the > contrary. What I find problematic is when multiple people do work, not > all with sponsorship or the same sponsorship, and only one person's > sponsor is mentioned in a way that seems to imply that all the work was > sponsored. > > What I'm proposing is not to end or ban the practice, but to improve and > refine it so that sponsors are credited for what they sponsor and not > for what they don't sponsor. > > Is that clearer? > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018, 4:40 PM John W. O'Brien <j...@saltant.com > > <mailto:j...@saltant.com>> wrote: > > > > Hello FreeBSD Ports, > > > > The Committer's Guide section on Commit Log Messages [0], doesn't > cover > > the use of the "Sponsored by" key word. As a non-committer > contributor, > > it only recently occurred to me to wonder what work that credit is > > intended to represent, and whether some light definition would be > > helpful to reduce ambiguity. > > > > When a committer credits a sponsor of theirs, from which the > contributor > > received no sponsorship, the portrayal feels a little awkward. Does > this > > strike the list as a problem, and if so, how ought it be solved? > > > > To make this concrete, allow me to illustrate the situation. > > > > Alice, working on her own time, prepares and contributes a patch. > Bob, > > who works for Acme Corp, reviews and commits the patch on company > time. > > The commit message includes "Sponsored by: Acme Corp". Alice eagerly > > awaits her check from Acme Corp. Should the commit message have read > > "Sponsored by: Acme Corp (Bob)"? > > > > This could be extensible to multiple sponsorships. If, instead, Alice > > prepares the patch having received a grant to do so from Best Sys > Dev, > > the commit message could state "Sponsored by: Acme Corp (Bob), Best > Sys > > Dev (Alice)". > > > > [0] > > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/ > committers-guide/article.html#commit-log-message > > > > PS: I realize that this issue transcends ports, but it's not clear > where > > I should send this instead, and this list seems like it would have a > > reasonably high concentration of people with a stake in the > discussion. > > > -- > John W. O'Brien > OpenPGP keys: > 0x33C4D64B895DBF3B > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
