On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Here is a quick initial definition. I believe that it is the committer's responsibility to properly state their affiliation. For instance, if a committer contributed to a project and it was approved by their employer (company A) but not actually part of their immediate duties I wouldn't necessarily expect them to have to say I am affiliated with Company A and they might identify themselves as independent. An underpinning of this definition is trust.Affiliation: For purposes of identifying a community's diversity and independence it is useful to identify a committer's afiliation. It is useful to disclose to the community if a committer is working on a project as part of their primary job responsibility. This can be loosely defined to mean paid to work on a project more than 4-hours a day. This affiliation can be used to identify a project that would be in jeopardy should an organization that is supporting developers should those developers time be redirected to unrelated efforts.
I like this definition. It includes the concept that affiliation is project-specific.
Craig
On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:I do think it would be good to clarify the meaning of affiliations, and make it more flexible.This topic has been kicked around for a while. Is there some consensus that affiliation is project-specific, such that a committer can be independent on project A while working on another project B as their "day job"?
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
