You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> on 2025/12/29 21:55:36 UTC
Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in ASF projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature here or there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects, earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially supporting the project and the foundation.
I’ve started a rough draft here: https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
(You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your browser.
Your input is welcome.
The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why, they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect vendor neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that is already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly preferred over voluminous prose.
Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by the end of this week.
—
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
> On Feb 17, 2026, at 7:31 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
> Jarek Potiuk wrote on 1/18/26 08:06:
>>> Which means we need to figure out more intuitive nav on the site. Again.
>> :)
>> That's a given :). The moment we can't improve something in what we do, is
>> the moment we stop reinventing ourselves and fall into stagnation.
> ...snip...
>
> It feels like the homepage needs some to lead different audiences to the topics they might be interested in - using the language they'll expect for those topics. And then perhaps simple list item landing pages per audience that help refine what topics they want to read.
>
> For example: the way any regular contributor will look for topics is different than a complete newcomer. Similarly, the way a technical participant is looking for information is different than someone interested in community or events. How can we write simple yet helpful mini-welcome pages for the kinds of readers that come to the website?
>
That’s very much what we tired to do when we rearranged the menus into audiences rather than topics, and wrote landing pages for each of those audiences. Patches eagerly welcomed.
> Brainstorming entry questions to frame these mini-welcomes:
>
> - I'd like to contribute code (someone just needing technical info or lists of projects)
> - I'm looking for a community to join (someone interested in how our communities actually work)
> - Where can my company participate around the ASF?
> - I'm a committer: what else does the ASF do outside my project?
>
> Each of these mini-welcomes would be a short list of links to key topics they might be interested in, plus perhaps a one sentence explainer to frame the topics.
>
> I guess the metaphor is: instead of having the home page images be just a list of topics, have some be a list of common *audiences* we have.
>
> This idea would sit alongside the existing nav bar and tags system, which are important for the audiences who use those first.
>
> Also: if tags are implemented across the site, why aren't they given a more featured UI spot?
Primarily because we have failed to attract a designer and/or information architect to help us with this work. Know anyone?
—
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Jarek Potiuk wrote on 1/18/26 08:06:
>> Which means we need to figure out more intuitive nav on the site. Again.
> :)
>
> That's a given :). The moment we can't improve something in what we do, is
> the moment we stop reinventing ourselves and fall into stagnation.
...snip...
It feels like the homepage needs some to lead different audiences to the
topics they might be interested in - using the language they'll expect
for those topics. And then perhaps simple list item landing pages per
audience that help refine what topics they want to read.
For example: the way any regular contributor will look for topics is
different than a complete newcomer. Similarly, the way a technical
participant is looking for information is different than someone
interested in community or events. How can we write simple yet helpful
mini-welcome pages for the kinds of readers that come to the website?
Brainstorming entry questions to frame these mini-welcomes:
- I'd like to contribute code (someone just needing technical info or
lists of projects)
- I'm looking for a community to join (someone interested in how our
communities actually work)
- Where can my company participate around the ASF?
- I'm a committer: what else does the ASF do outside my project?
Each of these mini-welcomes would be a short list of links to key topics
they might be interested in, plus perhaps a one sentence explainer to
frame the topics.
I guess the metaphor is: instead of having the home page images be just
a list of topics, have some be a list of common *audiences* we have.
This idea would sit alongside the existing nav bar and tags system,
which are important for the audiences who use those first.
Also: if tags are implemented across the site, why aren't they given a
more featured UI spot?
--
- Shane
Member
The Apache Software Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
> Which means we need to figure out more intuitive nav on the site. Again.
:)
That's a given :). The moment we can't improve something in what we do, is
the moment we stop reinventing ourselves and fall into stagnation.
J,
On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 12:47 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> Big +1 to everything you say here.
>
> Which means we need to figure out more intuitive nav on the site. Again. :)
>
> Rich
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026, 05:50 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. Looks good to me!
> >
> > Idea for linking in the future and navigation: maybe there should be a
> new
> > drop-down "Users" next to "Contributing" or maybe a separate "Users"
> > section in the "Contributing" dropdown?
> >
> > There we could add a link to the new page alongside a separate page where
> > we describe various ways how individual users can and should) contribute
> -
> > explaining how this is beneficial for individuals and welcome that our
> > users are involved more than just "using" - another variation on the
> "Free
> > as a puppy"? The proposal now is also about "free as a puppy" variation
> > more focused on commercial/institutional users - but I was thinking that
> we
> > could have another one without the "business/company" angle to it - that
> > should be rather addressed to individual users -> the two pages together
> > might be enough for a separate Users drop-down or section.
> >
> > For me Users are important members of the community. Often we tend to
> > forget - in our discussions and documentation and talks and thinking
> about
> > our community that our PMCs (and ASF) would not have a reason for
> existence
> > if not the users.
> > So Users are as much part of the community as committers, PMC members and
> > code contributors (with obvious overlaps). And it is a bit of a double
> > edged sword - because if we don't talk about our users as part of the
> > community - they don't even realise and understand that it's not only
> > welcome but also pretty much expected from them to contribute - in
> various
> > forms, even as simple as testing release candidates, creating well
> > described issues, starting discussions about things they are interested
> in.
> >
> > For me that is a very, very beginning of a contributing journey that we
> > often don't talk about.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 7:33 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Merged. Thanks.
> > >
> > > > On Jan 16, 2026, at 1:18 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I still think there are my points about contractors vs. employees
> > > > difference. currently even the description of "employee" compares it
> to
> > > > "working on internal projects" and there is mention about "dedicating
> > > > employee time", but I really think (and know - not only from my
> > > experience)
> > > > that there are many people working as "contractors" on open-source
> > > project
> > > > which is different that "employment", so at least we should mention
> it
> > > > because it's not "supporting/sponsoring" - it's contracting with
> > people
> > > > who contribute - not only maintainers like me - but also regular
> > > > contributors.
> > > >
> > > > For example Google contracts with EPAM (and used to contract with
> > > Polidea)
> > > > - and we were not Google Employees then (yet obviously those
> contracts
> > > make
> > > > Google much more visible in the community and their needs better
> > > addressed).
> > > >
> > > > I proposed - really really minimal changes to make that option
> visible
> > > now
> > > > - without changing the structure of the proposed documents (see my 3
> > last
> > > > suggestions).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:29 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Ok, folks, I think I’m ready to call this RC0. I *think* I’ve
> > addressed
> > > >> all of the comments already made on the PR, although perhaps not in
> > > exactly
> > > >> the ways suggested.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think that this is ready to publish. Note that it is *NOT* yet
> > linked
> > > >> anywhere in the navigation, or from any pages, but it would be
> > > accessible
> > > >> by the tags navigation if someone went looking.
> > > >>
> > > >> It’s definitely not perfect yet, but once it’s merged (if folks are
> > > >> willing) then it would be more fair game for anyone to
> modify/enhance
> > it
> > > >> and not seen as just mine.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, what do you think?
> > > >>
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
> > > >>
> > > >> (And, yes, despite some helpful comments on Slack about how to stage
> > the
> > > >> site for preview, I have still been unsuccessful in getting that to
> > > happen.
> > > >> Apologies. The Git/GitHub magic to get that pushed to a preview/*
> > > branch is
> > > >> somehow evading me.
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more
> > > >> persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in
> > ASF
> > > >> projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature
> > here
> > > or
> > > >> there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in
> projects,
> > > >> earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially
> > > supporting
> > > >> the project and the foundation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I’ve started a rough draft here:
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
> > > >>>
> > > >>> (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch
> (`git
> > > >> checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh
> > > >> run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in
> your
> > > >> browser.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Your input is welcome.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and
> why,
> > > >> they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect
> > > vendor
> > > >> neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content
> that
> > is
> > > >> already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly
> > > preferred
> > > >> over voluminous prose.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly
> become
> > > >> outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done
> by
> > > the
> > > >> end of this week.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> —
> > > >>> Rich Bowen
> > > >>> rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> —
> > > >> Rich Bowen
> > > >> rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > —
> > > Rich Bowen
> > > rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
Big +1 to everything you say here.
Which means we need to figure out more intuitive nav on the site. Again. :)
Rich
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026, 05:50 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> Thanks. Looks good to me!
>
> Idea for linking in the future and navigation: maybe there should be a new
> drop-down "Users" next to "Contributing" or maybe a separate "Users"
> section in the "Contributing" dropdown?
>
> There we could add a link to the new page alongside a separate page where
> we describe various ways how individual users can and should) contribute -
> explaining how this is beneficial for individuals and welcome that our
> users are involved more than just "using" - another variation on the "Free
> as a puppy"? The proposal now is also about "free as a puppy" variation
> more focused on commercial/institutional users - but I was thinking that we
> could have another one without the "business/company" angle to it - that
> should be rather addressed to individual users -> the two pages together
> might be enough for a separate Users drop-down or section.
>
> For me Users are important members of the community. Often we tend to
> forget - in our discussions and documentation and talks and thinking about
> our community that our PMCs (and ASF) would not have a reason for existence
> if not the users.
> So Users are as much part of the community as committers, PMC members and
> code contributors (with obvious overlaps). And it is a bit of a double
> edged sword - because if we don't talk about our users as part of the
> community - they don't even realise and understand that it's not only
> welcome but also pretty much expected from them to contribute - in various
> forms, even as simple as testing release candidates, creating well
> described issues, starting discussions about things they are interested in.
>
> For me that is a very, very beginning of a contributing journey that we
> often don't talk about.
>
> J.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 7:33 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> > Merged. Thanks.
> >
> > > On Jan 16, 2026, at 1:18 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I still think there are my points about contractors vs. employees
> > > difference. currently even the description of "employee" compares it to
> > > "working on internal projects" and there is mention about "dedicating
> > > employee time", but I really think (and know - not only from my
> > experience)
> > > that there are many people working as "contractors" on open-source
> > project
> > > which is different that "employment", so at least we should mention it
> > > because it's not "supporting/sponsoring" - it's contracting with
> people
> > > who contribute - not only maintainers like me - but also regular
> > > contributors.
> > >
> > > For example Google contracts with EPAM (and used to contract with
> > Polidea)
> > > - and we were not Google Employees then (yet obviously those contracts
> > make
> > > Google much more visible in the community and their needs better
> > addressed).
> > >
> > > I proposed - really really minimal changes to make that option visible
> > now
> > > - without changing the structure of the proposed documents (see my 3
> last
> > > suggestions).
> > >
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:29 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok, folks, I think I’m ready to call this RC0. I *think* I’ve
> addressed
> > >> all of the comments already made on the PR, although perhaps not in
> > exactly
> > >> the ways suggested.
> > >>
> > >> I think that this is ready to publish. Note that it is *NOT* yet
> linked
> > >> anywhere in the navigation, or from any pages, but it would be
> > accessible
> > >> by the tags navigation if someone went looking.
> > >>
> > >> It’s definitely not perfect yet, but once it’s merged (if folks are
> > >> willing) then it would be more fair game for anyone to modify/enhance
> it
> > >> and not seen as just mine.
> > >>
> > >> So, what do you think?
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
> > >>
> > >> (And, yes, despite some helpful comments on Slack about how to stage
> the
> > >> site for preview, I have still been unsuccessful in getting that to
> > happen.
> > >> Apologies. The Git/GitHub magic to get that pushed to a preview/*
> > branch is
> > >> somehow evading me.
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more
> > >> persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in
> ASF
> > >> projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature
> here
> > or
> > >> there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects,
> > >> earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially
> > supporting
> > >> the project and the foundation.
> > >>>
> > >>> I’ve started a rough draft here:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
> > >>>
> > >>> (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git
> > >> checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh
> > >> run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your
> > >> browser.
> > >>>
> > >>> Your input is welcome.
> > >>>
> > >>> The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why,
> > >> they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect
> > vendor
> > >> neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that
> is
> > >> already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly
> > preferred
> > >> over voluminous prose.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become
> > >> outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by
> > the
> > >> end of this week.
> > >>>
> > >>> —
> > >>> Rich Bowen
> > >>> rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> —
> > >> Rich Bowen
> > >> rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > —
> > Rich Bowen
> > rbowen@rcbowen.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
Thanks. Looks good to me!
Idea for linking in the future and navigation: maybe there should be a new
drop-down "Users" next to "Contributing" or maybe a separate "Users"
section in the "Contributing" dropdown?
There we could add a link to the new page alongside a separate page where
we describe various ways how individual users can and should) contribute -
explaining how this is beneficial for individuals and welcome that our
users are involved more than just "using" - another variation on the "Free
as a puppy"? The proposal now is also about "free as a puppy" variation
more focused on commercial/institutional users - but I was thinking that we
could have another one without the "business/company" angle to it - that
should be rather addressed to individual users -> the two pages together
might be enough for a separate Users drop-down or section.
For me Users are important members of the community. Often we tend to
forget - in our discussions and documentation and talks and thinking about
our community that our PMCs (and ASF) would not have a reason for existence
if not the users.
So Users are as much part of the community as committers, PMC members and
code contributors (with obvious overlaps). And it is a bit of a double
edged sword - because if we don't talk about our users as part of the
community - they don't even realise and understand that it's not only
welcome but also pretty much expected from them to contribute - in various
forms, even as simple as testing release candidates, creating well
described issues, starting discussions about things they are interested in.
For me that is a very, very beginning of a contributing journey that we
often don't talk about.
J.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 7:33 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> Merged. Thanks.
>
> > On Jan 16, 2026, at 1:18 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > I still think there are my points about contractors vs. employees
> > difference. currently even the description of "employee" compares it to
> > "working on internal projects" and there is mention about "dedicating
> > employee time", but I really think (and know - not only from my
> experience)
> > that there are many people working as "contractors" on open-source
> project
> > which is different that "employment", so at least we should mention it
> > because it's not "supporting/sponsoring" - it's contracting with people
> > who contribute - not only maintainers like me - but also regular
> > contributors.
> >
> > For example Google contracts with EPAM (and used to contract with
> Polidea)
> > - and we were not Google Employees then (yet obviously those contracts
> make
> > Google much more visible in the community and their needs better
> addressed).
> >
> > I proposed - really really minimal changes to make that option visible
> now
> > - without changing the structure of the proposed documents (see my 3 last
> > suggestions).
> >
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:29 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, folks, I think I’m ready to call this RC0. I *think* I’ve addressed
> >> all of the comments already made on the PR, although perhaps not in
> exactly
> >> the ways suggested.
> >>
> >> I think that this is ready to publish. Note that it is *NOT* yet linked
> >> anywhere in the navigation, or from any pages, but it would be
> accessible
> >> by the tags navigation if someone went looking.
> >>
> >> It’s definitely not perfect yet, but once it’s merged (if folks are
> >> willing) then it would be more fair game for anyone to modify/enhance it
> >> and not seen as just mine.
> >>
> >> So, what do you think?
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
> >>
> >> (And, yes, despite some helpful comments on Slack about how to stage the
> >> site for preview, I have still been unsuccessful in getting that to
> happen.
> >> Apologies. The Git/GitHub magic to get that pushed to a preview/*
> branch is
> >> somehow evading me.
> >>
> >>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more
> >> persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in ASF
> >> projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature here
> or
> >> there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects,
> >> earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially
> supporting
> >> the project and the foundation.
> >>>
> >>> I’ve started a rough draft here:
> >> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
> >>>
> >>> (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git
> >> checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh
> >> run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your
> >> browser.
> >>>
> >>> Your input is welcome.
> >>>
> >>> The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why,
> >> they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect
> vendor
> >> neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that is
> >> already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly
> preferred
> >> over voluminous prose.
> >>>
> >>> Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become
> >> outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by
> the
> >> end of this week.
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Rich Bowen
> >>> rbowen@rcbowen.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> —
> >> Rich Bowen
> >> rbowen@rcbowen.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> —
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen@rcbowen.com
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
Merged. Thanks.
> On Jan 16, 2026, at 1:18 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> I still think there are my points about contractors vs. employees
> difference. currently even the description of "employee" compares it to
> "working on internal projects" and there is mention about "dedicating
> employee time", but I really think (and know - not only from my experience)
> that there are many people working as "contractors" on open-source project
> which is different that "employment", so at least we should mention it
> because it's not "supporting/sponsoring" - it's contracting with people
> who contribute - not only maintainers like me - but also regular
> contributors.
>
> For example Google contracts with EPAM (and used to contract with Polidea)
> - and we were not Google Employees then (yet obviously those contracts make
> Google much more visible in the community and their needs better addressed).
>
> I proposed - really really minimal changes to make that option visible now
> - without changing the structure of the proposed documents (see my 3 last
> suggestions).
>
>
> J.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:29 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, folks, I think I’m ready to call this RC0. I *think* I’ve addressed
>> all of the comments already made on the PR, although perhaps not in exactly
>> the ways suggested.
>>
>> I think that this is ready to publish. Note that it is *NOT* yet linked
>> anywhere in the navigation, or from any pages, but it would be accessible
>> by the tags navigation if someone went looking.
>>
>> It’s definitely not perfect yet, but once it’s merged (if folks are
>> willing) then it would be more fair game for anyone to modify/enhance it
>> and not seen as just mine.
>>
>> So, what do you think?
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
>>
>> (And, yes, despite some helpful comments on Slack about how to stage the
>> site for preview, I have still been unsuccessful in getting that to happen.
>> Apologies. The Git/GitHub magic to get that pushed to a preview/* branch is
>> somehow evading me.
>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more
>> persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in ASF
>> projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature here or
>> there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects,
>> earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially supporting
>> the project and the foundation.
>>>
>>> I’ve started a rough draft here:
>> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
>>>
>>> (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git
>> checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh
>> run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your
>> browser.
>>>
>>> Your input is welcome.
>>>
>>> The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why,
>> they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect vendor
>> neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that is
>> already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly preferred
>> over voluminous prose.
>>>
>>> Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become
>> outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by the
>> end of this week.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Rich Bowen
>>> rbowen@rcbowen.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> —
>> Rich Bowen
>> rbowen@rcbowen.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
—
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
I still think there are my points about contractors vs. employees
difference. currently even the description of "employee" compares it to
"working on internal projects" and there is mention about "dedicating
employee time", but I really think (and know - not only from my experience)
that there are many people working as "contractors" on open-source project
which is different that "employment", so at least we should mention it
because it's not "supporting/sponsoring" - it's contracting with people
who contribute - not only maintainers like me - but also regular
contributors.
For example Google contracts with EPAM (and used to contract with Polidea)
- and we were not Google Employees then (yet obviously those contracts make
Google much more visible in the community and their needs better addressed).
I proposed - really really minimal changes to make that option visible now
- without changing the structure of the proposed documents (see my 3 last
suggestions).
J.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:29 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> Ok, folks, I think I’m ready to call this RC0. I *think* I’ve addressed
> all of the comments already made on the PR, although perhaps not in exactly
> the ways suggested.
>
> I think that this is ready to publish. Note that it is *NOT* yet linked
> anywhere in the navigation, or from any pages, but it would be accessible
> by the tags navigation if someone went looking.
>
> It’s definitely not perfect yet, but once it’s merged (if folks are
> willing) then it would be more fair game for anyone to modify/enhance it
> and not seen as just mine.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
>
> (And, yes, despite some helpful comments on Slack about how to stage the
> site for preview, I have still been unsuccessful in getting that to happen.
> Apologies. The Git/GitHub magic to get that pushed to a preview/* branch is
> somehow evading me.
>
> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> > I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more
> persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in ASF
> projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature here or
> there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects,
> earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially supporting
> the project and the foundation.
> >
> > I’ve started a rough draft here:
> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
> >
> > (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git
> checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh
> run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your
> browser.
> >
> > Your input is welcome.
> >
> > The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why,
> they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect vendor
> neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that is
> already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly preferred
> over voluminous prose.
> >
> > Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become
> outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by the
> end of this week.
> >
> > —
> > Rich Bowen
> > rbowen@rcbowen.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> —
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen@rcbowen.com
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
Ok, folks, I think I’m ready to call this RC0. I *think* I’ve addressed all of the comments already made on the PR, although perhaps not in exactly the ways suggested.
I think that this is ready to publish. Note that it is *NOT* yet linked anywhere in the navigation, or from any pages, but it would be accessible by the tags navigation if someone went looking.
It’s definitely not perfect yet, but once it’s merged (if folks are willing) then it would be more fair game for anyone to modify/enhance it and not seen as just mine.
So, what do you think?
https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
(And, yes, despite some helpful comments on Slack about how to stage the site for preview, I have still been unsuccessful in getting that to happen. Apologies. The Git/GitHub magic to get that pushed to a preview/* branch is somehow evading me.
> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in ASF projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature here or there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects, earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially supporting the project and the foundation.
>
> I’ve started a rough draft here: https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
>
> (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your browser.
>
> Your input is welcome.
>
> The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why, they participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect vendor neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that is already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly preferred over voluminous prose.
>
> Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by the end of this week.
>
> —
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen@rcbowen.com
>
>
>
>
—
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
Re: Encouraging businesses to participate in ASF projects
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
Very cool - I think it's very much needed. I am happily
commenting/suggesting my proposals there. I think it would be great to have
inputs from many people coming from diverse backgrounds and experiences and
even legal systems, I think many of us have different experiences
cooperating with businesses - sometimes not easily transferable and nuanced.
I think personally - that it should be something that every one of the ASF
and PMC members could simply send as a link to businesses they interact
with - "And here is how you can participate".
We - as individuals - are the best advocates for the ASF ideas and
principles, but businesses have - in essence - no morality, goals,
principles. People do, businesses don't. But clearly businesses have huge
benefits from participating in Open Source, otherwise OSS would not take
over the world as it did - and if we can convert our principles and values
into real, tangible benefits for businesses (often -> increase their profit
by either cutting the costs or increasing income, ideally both) - that is
what makes it a "convincing" message for the business. "Business" is
generally little interested in "principles" and more interested "what's in
it for my business" almost by definition.
J.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 10:55 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few years about making more
> persuasive, pragmatic arguments as to why companies should engage in ASF
> projects in meaningful ways. Rather than just a bug fix or feature here or
> there, to think strategically about long-term engagement in projects,
> earning trust and influence over the road map, and financially supporting
> the project and the foundation.
>
> I’ve started a rough draft here:
> https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216
>
> (You can have a look by switching your git clone to this branch (`git
> checkout rbowen-company-involvement`), running the site locally (`sh
> run-local.sh`), and loading http://localhost:1313/companies/ in your
> browser.
>
> Your input is welcome.
>
> The goal here is to encourage companies to think about how, and why, they
> participate in ASF projects, and to do so in ways that respect vendor
> neutrality and project brands. But also not to duplicate content that is
> already elsewhere on our various websites — so links are greatly preferred
> over voluminous prose.
>
> Please note that it’s not done yet, so your diffs may quickly become
> outdated. I’m still drafting. But I hope to have a first draft done by the
> end of this week.
>
> —
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen@rcbowen.com
>
>
>
>
>