You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2011/06/02 21:22:24 UTC
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
On 6/2/2011 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
>> do know about it, people are signing on.
>
> "IBM plans to commit new project members and individual contributors from its global
> development team to strengthen the project and ensure its future success." [1]
I have two remaining concerns with this statement.
The ASF welcomes independent developers and those from commercial
organizations on the same terms, by demonstration of merit and an
apparent long term interest in improving the project. This is why
I mentioned earlier that it is important for IBM folk to sign up
individually on the wiki roster.
Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
communities. Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
times there is not. Communities are based on individuals.
Already, on the part of Oracle, this seems to be a code dump (the
abandonment of code, in spite of whatever help with transition).
I raised the question on another thread; will Oracle inhibit its
interested engineers from participating on their own time, if it
remains their personal interest to participate?
And should IBM choose in the near or far future to divest itself
from an OOo community, in the pattern of Harmony, is it willing to
make a statement that its employees will not be discouraged from
ongoing participation /on their own time/, again if this is their
personal interest?
So far, this proposal appears to be the effort of two individuals
on behalf of two corporations, with some great enthusiam from others.
All recognize that any resulting project at the Apache Software
Foundation would be the effort of individuals, not companies per say.
So these two answers would go a long way to ensure that the long term
project health is not beholden to Oracle's absence, or any threat of
withdrawal by IBM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Posted by Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com>.
Hi Steve,
Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran:
> [...]
>>
>
> The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just
> "vanishes". They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend
> to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The
> turnover/year may be the same, but the way the turnover happens is
> different.
>
> to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on
> the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status
> through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the
> active knowledge goes along with their departure
That are valid concerns. What I like to point out that at this moment I
count at least 7 Oracle people who want to contribute
as an individual. So I think this is an indication that there is a
strong interest in the project itself that is not directly bound
to the salary :-)
Regards,
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Posted by Christian Lippka <ch...@lippka.com>.
Hi Steve,
Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran:
> [...]
>>
>
> The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just
> "vanishes". They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend
> to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The
> turnover/year may be the same, but the way the turnover happens is
> different.
>
> to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on
> the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status
> through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the
> active knowledge goes along with their departure
That are valid concerns. What I like to point out that at this moment I
count at least 7 Oracle people who want to contribute
as an individual. So I think this is an indication that there is a
strong interest in the project itself that is not directly bound
to the salary :-)
Regards,
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Steve,
In the interest of completeness, please point out that folks from IBM
did join and work on Axis2 which was a complete rewrite from scratch,
got that integrated into other Apache projects like Geronimo.
thanks,
dims
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 03:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM,<ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
>>>> communities. Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
>>>> times there is not. Communities are based on individuals.
>>>
>>> And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs
>>> sometimes entail contributing to open source communities. I think we all
>>> understand how this works.
>>>
>>> But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher
>>> abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments? That
>>> would
>>> be an interesting correlation to show. Of course, we must also consider
>>> the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate
>>> sponsorship. That number is harder to estimate.
>>
>> I can confirm that is is a common enough phenomenon to warrant
>> highlighting in the standard template:
>>
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-reliance-on-salaried-developers
>>
>>> And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they
>>> are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider. The
>>> Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a
>>> great risk of death falling down stairs.
>>>
>
> The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just "vanishes".
> They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend to drift off, go
> onto what else interests them, or whatever. The turnover/year may be the
> same, but the way the turnover happens is different.
>
> to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on the
> projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status through
> their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the active
> knowledge goes along with their departure
>
> Examples
> Axis 1.x: IBM staffers all vanish.
> Harmony: IBM FTEs all vanish.
>
> I don't think we need any more, given that these show that IBM has a track
> record of doing this. Maybe not your bit of the company, but we outsiders
> can't tell that
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
On 06/03/2011 03:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM,<ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
>>> communities. Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
>>> times there is not. Communities are based on individuals.
>>
>> And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs
>> sometimes entail contributing to open source communities. I think we all
>> understand how this works.
>>
>> But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher
>> abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments? That would
>> be an interesting correlation to show. Of course, we must also consider
>> the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate
>> sponsorship. That number is harder to estimate.
>
> I can confirm that is is a common enough phenomenon to warrant
> highlighting in the standard template:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-reliance-on-salaried-developers
>
>> And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they
>> are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider. The
>> Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a
>> great risk of death falling down stairs.
>>
The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just "vanishes".
They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend to drift off,
go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The turnover/year may be
the same, but the way the turnover happens is different.
to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on
the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status
through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the
active knowledge goes along with their departure
Examples
Axis 1.x: IBM staffers all vanish.
Harmony: IBM FTEs all vanish.
I don't think we need any more, given that these show that IBM has a
track record of doing this. Maybe not your bit of the company, but we
outsiders can't tell that
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
> PM:
>
>> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
>> >> do know about it, people are signing on.
>> >
>> > "IBM plans to commit new project members and individual
>> contributors from its global
>> > development team to strengthen the project and ensure its future
>> success." [1]
>>
>> I have two remaining concerns with this statement.
>>
>
> .
> .
> .
>
>>
>> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
>> communities. Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
>> times there is not. Communities are based on individuals.
>
> And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs
> sometimes entail contributing to open source communities. I think we all
> understand how this works.
>
> But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher
> abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments? That would
> be an interesting correlation to show. Of course, we must also consider
> the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate
> sponsorship. That number is harder to estimate.
I can confirm that is is a common enough phenomenon to warrant
highlighting in the standard template:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-reliance-on-salaried-developers
> And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they
> are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider. The
> Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a
> great risk of death falling down stairs.
>
>
> .
> .
> .
>
>> And should IBM choose in the near or far future to divest itself
>> from an OOo community, in the pattern of Harmony, is it willing to
>> make a statement that its employees will not be discouraged from
>> ongoing participation /on their own time/, again if this is their
>> personal interest?
>>
>
> As you know, a requirement for graduation from incubation is that the
> podling demonstrate an "open and diverse community". The guidelines state
> the one aspect of this requirement as, "there is no single company or
> entity that is vital to the success of the project ".
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community
>
> So I think your own guidelines specify the expected outcome in the case a
> corporate sponsor withdraws.
s/your/our/
> To your other point, IBM has Open Source Participation Guidelines that
> generally permit and encourage employee to participate in open source
> projects. But there are restrictions and exceptions, to protect IBM, but
> also to protect the open source projects, from IP contamination. Every
> case is reviewed individually. You can't make any blanket statement,
> especially to a hypothetical.
>
>
>> So far, this proposal appears to be the effort of two individuals
>> on behalf of two corporations, with some great enthusiam from others.
>> All recognize that any resulting project at the Apache Software
>> Foundation would be the effort of individuals, not companies per say.
>> So these two answers would go a long way to ensure that the long term
>> project health is not beholden to Oracle's absence, or any threat of
>> withdrawal by IBM.
>>
>
> Certainly the proposal was drafted by few. Now it is being reviewed by
> more. And I hope the project will have participation by many., We're
> moving in the right direction.
- Sam Ruby
P.S. Full disclosure: ASF Board member and IBM employee
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
"William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
PM:
> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
> >> do know about it, people are signing on.
> >
> > "IBM plans to commit new project members and individual
> contributors from its global
> > development team to strengthen the project and ensure its future
> success." [1]
>
> I have two remaining concerns with this statement.
>
.
.
.
>
> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
> communities. Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
> times there is not. Communities are based on individuals.
>
And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs
sometimes entail contributing to open source communities. I think we all
understand how this works.
But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher
abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments? That would
be an interesting correlation to show. Of course, we must also consider
the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate
sponsorship. That number is harder to estimate.
And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they
are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider. The
Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a
great risk of death falling down stairs.
.
.
.
> And should IBM choose in the near or far future to divest itself
> from an OOo community, in the pattern of Harmony, is it willing to
> make a statement that its employees will not be discouraged from
> ongoing participation /on their own time/, again if this is their
> personal interest?
>
As you know, a requirement for graduation from incubation is that the
podling demonstrate an "open and diverse community". The guidelines state
the one aspect of this requirement as, "there is no single company or
entity that is vital to the success of the project ".
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community
So I think your own guidelines specify the expected outcome in the case a
corporate sponsor withdraws.
To your other point, IBM has Open Source Participation Guidelines that
generally permit and encourage employee to participate in open source
projects. But there are restrictions and exceptions, to protect IBM, but
also to protect the open source projects, from IP contamination. Every
case is reviewed individually. You can't make any blanket statement,
especially to a hypothetical.
> So far, this proposal appears to be the effort of two individuals
> on behalf of two corporations, with some great enthusiam from others.
> All recognize that any resulting project at the Apache Software
> Foundation would be the effort of individuals, not companies per say.
> So these two answers would go a long way to ensure that the long term
> project health is not beholden to Oracle's absence, or any threat of
> withdrawal by IBM.
>
Certainly the proposal was drafted by few. Now it is being reviewed by
more. And I hope the project will have participation by many., We're
moving in the right direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org