On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 12:09 PM, Anne Gentle wrote: > > What about something with attribution in the docs for the feature? Can > > we play around with that a while? Attribution is going to have to be > > incorporated better into the docs for the CC By licensing anyway. Any > > thoughts on docs as placement for "This feature brought to you by > > <insert rewarded upstreamer here>" We need to play with the words more. > > Sponsored by brings up ickies for me, sounds like it turns others off > > too. Let's be careful with wording and placement both. > > This sounds like it could get really messy. Once a feature goes in, it > becomes a collaboration between many people over time. It sounds like > it would get into the same situation as our copyright headers in source > files (wildly incomplete). > > This also has a tendency to just recognize feature adds, and not common > work. Lack of or minimal contributions to common work by some > organizations is already a pretty big problem in various parts of > OpenStack. > > Great point. I'm also trying to point out that common areas like doc could use the attention and would give attribution. Also trying to focus on users, and avoid a "how it's made" focus. But clearly ongoing maintenance is a concern with "sponsored" patches. > -- > Russell Bryant > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > openstack...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
