Open Stack

On 13/11/13 17:22 -0700, John Griffith wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2013 12:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:20:20PM +0100, Nicolas Barcet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear TC members,
>>>>
>>>> Our companies are actively encouraging our respective customers to have
>>>> the
>>>> patches they mission us to make be contributed back upstream.  In order
>>>> to
>>>> encourage this behavior from them and others, it would be nice that if
>>>> could gain some visibility as "sponsors" of the patches in the same way
>>>> we
>>>> get visibility as "authors" of the patches today.
>>>>
>>>> The goal here is not to provide yet another way to count affiliations of
>>>> direct contributors, nor is it a way to introduce sales pitches in
>>>> contrib.
>>>>   The only acceptable and appropriate use of the proposal we are making
>>>> is
>>>> to signal when a patch made by a contributor for another comany than the
>>>> one he is currently employed by.
>>>>
>>>> For example if I work for a company A and write a patch as part of an
>>>> engagement with company B, I would signal that Company B is the sponsor
>>>> of
>>>> my patch this way, not Company A.  Company B would under current
>>>> circumstances not get any credit for their indirect contribution to our
>>>> code base, while I think it is our intent to encourage them to
>>>> contribute,
>>>> even indirectly.
>>>>
>>>> To enable this, we are proposing that the commit text of a patch may
>>>> include a
>>>>     sponsored-by: <sponsorname>
>>>> line which could be used by various tools to report on these commits.
>>>>   Sponsored-by should not be used to report on the name of the company
>>>> the
>>>> contributor is already affiliated to.
>>>>
>>>> We would appreciate to see your comments on the subject and eventually
>>>> get
>>>> your approval for it's use.
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, lets call this what it is: "marketing".
>>>
>>> I'm fine with the idea of a company wanting to have recognition for work
>>> that they fund. They can achieve this by putting out a press release or
>>> writing a blog post saying that they "funded awesome feature XYZ to bring
>>> benefits ABC to the project" on their own websites, or any number of other
>>> marketing approaches. Most / many companies and individuals contributing
>>> to OpenStack in fact already do this very frequently which is fine /
>>> great.
>>>
>>> I don't think we need to, nor should we, add anything to our code commits,
>>> review / development workflow / toolchain to support such marketing
>>> pitches.
>>> The identities recorded in git commits / gerrit reviewes / blueprints etc
>>> should exclusively focus on technical authorship, not sponsorship. Leave
>>> the marketing pitches for elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Daniel here. There's nothing wrong with marketing, and there's
>> nothing wrong with a company promoting the funding that it contributed to
>> get some feature written or high profile bug fixed. But, I don't believe
>> this marketing belongs in the commit log. In the open source community,
>> *individuals* develop and contribute code, not companies. And I'm not
>> talking about joint contribution agreements, like the corporate CLA. I'm
>> talking about the actual work that is performed by developers, technical
>> documentation folks, QA folks, etc. Source control should be the domain of
>> the individual, not the company.
>>
>
>Well said

Yet again, couldn't agree more!

>
>> Best,
>> -jay
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco