Affiliation vs. individual

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Affiliation vs. individual

Gunnar Tapper
Hi,

I've discussed this with a few individuals but would like to raise the
discussion with a larger group.

Situation

As contributors to the ASF, we represents ourselves as individuals. Some of
us contribute to projects as part of our employment, some of us donate our
time privately.

Discussion

You the individual is asked to share your employer when going through
processes such as graduation. I get the reason: to ensure diversity in the
project.

However, some of us are donating our private time and may therefore want to
represent ourselves as a private donor rather than involve our employeer in
the discussion.

[Disclosure: I work for a company that is unlikely to have an issue with my
involvement with ASF projects outside what my company cares for.]

Proposal

Anyone that chooses to do so can use "private donation" instead of the
employer when representing affiliation.

Thoughts?

--
Thanks,

Gunnar
*If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Affiliation vs. individual

Dave Birdsall
Hi Gunnar,

Just a question: Many employers in their employment contracts specify that any software work done by employees, even off hours, is the property of the company. I'm wondering if such situations place a requirement on a private donor to clear outside contributions with their employer?

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Gunnar Tapper [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 11:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Affiliation vs. individual

Hi,

I've discussed this with a few individuals but would like to raise the discussion with a larger group.

Situation

As contributors to the ASF, we represents ourselves as individuals. Some of us contribute to projects as part of our employment, some of us donate our time privately.

Discussion

You the individual is asked to share your employer when going through processes such as graduation. I get the reason: to ensure diversity in the project.

However, some of us are donating our private time and may therefore want to represent ourselves as a private donor rather than involve our employeer in the discussion.

[Disclosure: I work for a company that is unlikely to have an issue with my involvement with ASF projects outside what my company cares for.]

Proposal

Anyone that chooses to do so can use "private donation" instead of the employer when representing affiliation.

Thoughts?

--
Thanks,

Gunnar
*If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Affiliation vs. individual

Gunnar Tapper
Hi Dave:

I think this situation is covered in paragraph 4 of the ICLA:
https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf

This doesn't mean that the individual or the company necessary want the
company name involved. I don't know if it's a large problem but it's a bit
of a contradiction to operate as an individual just to involve your
employer in some of the ASF processes.

Thanks,

Gunnar

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Dave Birdsall <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Gunnar,
>
> Just a question: Many employers in their employment contracts specify that
> any software work done by employees, even off hours, is the property of the
> company. I'm wondering if such situations place a requirement on a private
> donor to clear outside contributions with their employer?
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gunnar Tapper [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 11:07 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Affiliation vs. individual
>
> Hi,
>
> I've discussed this with a few individuals but would like to raise the
> discussion with a larger group.
>
> Situation
>
> As contributors to the ASF, we represents ourselves as individuals. Some
> of us contribute to projects as part of our employment, some of us donate
> our time privately.
>
> Discussion
>
> You the individual is asked to share your employer when going through
> processes such as graduation. I get the reason: to ensure diversity in the
> project.
>
> However, some of us are donating our private time and may therefore want
> to represent ourselves as a private donor rather than involve our employeer
> in the discussion.
>
> [Disclosure: I work for a company that is unlikely to have an issue with
> my involvement with ASF projects outside what my company cares for.]
>
> Proposal
>
> Anyone that chooses to do so can use "private donation" instead of the
> employer when representing affiliation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Gunnar
> *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
>



--
Thanks,

Gunnar
*If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Affiliation vs. individual

Dave Fisher-5
In reply to this post by Gunnar Tapper
Hi Gunnar,

I think that you present a reasonable scenario. We even allow individuals to use an alias for their public names. We do want to know the real names on the ICLA.

Rather than “private donation” I think “unaffiliated” or “” is better.

As you understand we want to know affiliation as a measure of diversity for practical reasons. We are about Community over Code and want to avoid being in a situation where a project is unviable because a majority of the individuals were contributing through work and their employers made other decisions. This happens all the time and is perfectly normal and expected.

In the Incubator we want to assure that podlings are viable communities when they graduate. In that assessment in my opinion unaffiliated committers and PMC members are truly a plus for a community. Assuming that they can answer asking why a committer was affiliated at the beginning of incubation and is no longer may prove the diversity of the podling. Changes in affiliation might be good signs too.

Regards,
Dave

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Gunnar Tapper <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've discussed this with a few individuals but would like to raise the
> discussion with a larger group.
>
> Situation
>
> As contributors to the ASF, we represents ourselves as individuals. Some of
> us contribute to projects as part of our employment, some of us donate our
> time privately.
>
> Discussion
>
> You the individual is asked to share your employer when going through
> processes such as graduation. I get the reason: to ensure diversity in the
> project.
>
> However, some of us are donating our private time and may therefore want to
> represent ourselves as a private donor rather than involve our employeer in
> the discussion.
>
> [Disclosure: I work for a company that is unlikely to have an issue with my
> involvement with ASF projects outside what my company cares for.]
>
> Proposal
>
> Anyone that chooses to do so can use "private donation" instead of the
> employer when representing affiliation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Gunnar
> *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*


signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Affiliation vs. individual

toki
In reply to this post by Gunnar Tapper
On 11/04/2017 06:31 PM, Gunnar Tapper wrote:

> company name involved. I don't know if it's a large problem but it's a bit
> of a contradiction to operate as an individual just to involve your employer in some of the ASF processes.

It all depends upon the specific wording of one's contract with one's
employer. Corporate culture provides only a rough guidelines.

In the contracts I've seen, the scope has ranged from:
* only the same type of work, using the same type of tools, as used for
the job;
through
* all content, theories, and inventions created by the individual,
regardless of the position with the company, or anything else;

By way of example, the first company doesn't care if an advertising rep
writes computer software in their time away from work. They will care,
if the individual creates an advertising/marketing plan for another
organisation.  Likewise, they won't care if a staff programmer creates a
marketing campaign for a third party in their free time, but they will
care if that programmer starts writing code for third parties.

The second company will come down as hard on a janitor who creates an
advertising/marketing plan in their free time, as they will on a
programming writing code for another party in their free time, as they
will on a receptionist who writes books in their spare time.

jonathon


signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Affiliation vs. individual

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-5
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:13 PM Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gunnar,
>
> I think that you present a reasonable scenario. We even allow individuals
> to use an alias for their public names. We do want to know the real names
> on the ICLA.
>
> Rather than “private donation” I think “unaffiliated” or “” is better.
>
> As you understand we want to know affiliation as a measure of diversity
> for practical reasons. We are about Community over Code and want to avoid
> being in a situation where a project is unviable because a majority of the
> individuals were contributing through work and their employers made other
> decisions. This happens all the time and is perfectly normal and expected.
>

I agree with everything Dave's listed in here.  In cases like what you're
describing Gunnar, "unaffiliated" is a perfectly acceptable response to the
question about the affiliations of the proposed PMC.


>
> In the Incubator we want to assure that podlings are viable communities
> when they graduate. In that assessment in my opinion unaffiliated
> committers and PMC members are truly a plus for a community. Assuming that
> they can answer asking why a committer was affiliated at the beginning of
> incubation and is no longer may prove the diversity of the podling. Changes
> in affiliation might be good signs too.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> > On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Gunnar Tapper <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've discussed this with a few individuals but would like to raise the
> > discussion with a larger group.
> >
> > Situation
> >
> > As contributors to the ASF, we represents ourselves as individuals. Some
> of
> > us contribute to projects as part of our employment, some of us donate
> our
> > time privately.
> >
> > Discussion
> >
> > You the individual is asked to share your employer when going through
> > processes such as graduation. I get the reason: to ensure diversity in
> the
> > project.
> >
> > However, some of us are donating our private time and may therefore want
> to
> > represent ourselves as a private donor rather than involve our employeer
> in
> > the discussion.
> >
> > [Disclosure: I work for a company that is unlikely to have an issue with
> my
> > involvement with ASF projects outside what my company cares for.]
> >
> > Proposal
> >
> > Anyone that chooses to do so can use "private donation" instead of the
> > employer when representing affiliation.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gunnar
> > *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Affiliation vs. individual

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Gunnar Tapper
I have participated in a project since it was in the incubator. More than 90% of the committers & PMC members work for the same company. I don’t have a problem with that from the perspective of how the project is run. The issue I see is that there are only a few significant contributors and they tend to disappear after a year or so and be replaced by a new, suddenly active committer. It is obvious the person who disappeared and the new person coming in were being employed to maintain the project. To me, It speaks volumes that they don’t keep committing after the new maintainer comes along.

I’m not saying that this creates any problems from a decision making point of view, but it sure seems like the commitment level to the project of the individuals who participate isn’t very high.

Ralph


> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Gunnar Tapper <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've discussed this with a few individuals but would like to raise the
> discussion with a larger group.
>
> Situation
>
> As contributors to the ASF, we represents ourselves as individuals. Some of
> us contribute to projects as part of our employment, some of us donate our
> time privately.
>
> Discussion
>
> You the individual is asked to share your employer when going through
> processes such as graduation. I get the reason: to ensure diversity in the
> project.
>
> However, some of us are donating our private time and may therefore want to
> represent ourselves as a private donor rather than involve our employeer in
> the discussion.
>
> [Disclosure: I work for a company that is unlikely to have an issue with my
> involvement with ASF projects outside what my company cares for.]
>
> Proposal
>
> Anyone that chooses to do so can use "private donation" instead of the
> employer when representing affiliation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Gunnar
> *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Affiliation vs. individual

Craig Russell-3
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-5
I agree with what Dave Fisher says. I'd also prefer "unaffiliated" as the term of art to describe a person who contributes to a project on their own time without direction or compensation for such work from any company.

Craig

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Gunnar,
>
> I think that you present a reasonable scenario. We even allow individuals to use an alias for their public names. We do want to know the real names on the ICLA.
>
> Rather than “private donation” I think “unaffiliated” or “” is better.
>
> As you understand we want to know affiliation as a measure of diversity for practical reasons. We are about Community over Code and want to avoid being in a situation where a project is unviable because a majority of the individuals were contributing through work and their employers made other decisions. This happens all the time and is perfectly normal and expected.
>
> In the Incubator we want to assure that podlings are viable communities when they graduate. In that assessment in my opinion unaffiliated committers and PMC members are truly a plus for a community. Assuming that they can answer asking why a committer was affiliated at the beginning of incubation and is no longer may prove the diversity of the podling. Changes in affiliation might be good signs too.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Gunnar Tapper <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've discussed this with a few individuals but would like to raise the
>> discussion with a larger group.
>>
>> Situation
>>
>> As contributors to the ASF, we represents ourselves as individuals. Some of
>> us contribute to projects as part of our employment, some of us donate our
>> time privately.
>>
>> Discussion
>>
>> You the individual is asked to share your employer when going through
>> processes such as graduation. I get the reason: to ensure diversity in the
>> project.
>>
>> However, some of us are donating our private time and may therefore want to
>> represent ourselves as a private donor rather than involve our employeer in
>> the discussion.
>>
>> [Disclosure: I work for a company that is unlikely to have an issue with my
>> involvement with ASF projects outside what my company cares for.]
>>
>> Proposal
>>
>> Anyone that chooses to do so can use "private donation" instead of the
>> employer when representing affiliation.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gunnar
>> *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
>

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
[hidden email] http://db.apache.org/jdo


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Affiliation vs. individual

Bertrand Delacretaz
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-5
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...As you understand we want to know affiliation as a measure of diversity for practical reasons....

But nobody is *required* to disclose their affiliations, doing so is optional.

-Bertrand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]