-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
Best practice for companies around ASF projects #216
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
8ebf78d
26bb0ab
93a5d59
43bf90c
0701c96
12442a4
6c8acdf
e746de2
2a26e03
7375f46
250289a
62b3851
29a5691
60fac07
8261e2c
80e3544
1216891
198e527
f30f69e
1034375
5d0c4bc
c25d7d3
629c9b2
3c37e0b
ee3a202
7721ff4
63b6c21
5dae375
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: Companies and Open Source | ||
| url: /companies/ | ||
| tags: ["companies", "business", "navigation"] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # Why Your Company Should Participate in ASF Projects | ||
|
|
||
| All modern digital infrastructure is dependent on open source software, | ||
| and **ASF projects are everywhere**. | ||
| Companies must think strategically about how they will engage with the | ||
| open source projects on which they rely in order to ensure | ||
| sustainability, and **influence the direction of these projects** for the | ||
| benefit of their customers. | ||
|
|
||
| ## [Benefits to Companies](/companies/benefits.html) | ||
|
|
||
| Active participation in open source projects provides significant | ||
| strategic and operational benefits to companies, including talent | ||
| acquisition, influence over industry standards, strong company | ||
| partnerships, and greater customer trust.<br /> | ||
| [[Read more ...](/companies/benefits.html)] | ||
|
|
||
| ## Ways to Contribute | ||
|
|
||
| There are three primary ways that companies can engage with ASF | ||
| projects. Each has costs and benefits that should be carefully | ||
| considered. | ||
|
|
||
| <div class="row"> | ||
| <!-- Employ --> | ||
| <div class="col-md-4"> | ||
|
|
||
| ### [Employ Contributors](/companies/employ.html) | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Would love to see a different title used here as employing contributors directly has many issues.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Perhaps this is a "Sponsor Individuals" and the next one is "Sponsor Projects"
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do think we should mention employment as one of the options (contracting and sponsoring individuals as well) - becaue it's the fact and even welcome that many contributors, committers, PMC members are employees. This is a good thing - for example one that allows Airflow to thrive (amongst other things). But I think we should just be explicit about boundaries of the influence - this is what I wanted to clarify how much influence companies might expect (see my "aligining incentives" proposal). |
||
|
|
||
| [](/companies/employ.html) | ||
|
|
||
| Support ASF projects by employing, or otherwise financially supporting, developers, and other professionals, | ||
| who contribute directly to projects.<br /> | ||
| [[Read more ...](/companies/employ.html)] | ||
| </div><!-- End Employ --> | ||
|
|
||
| <div class="col-md-4"> | ||
| <!-- Sponsor --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### [Financial Sponsorship](/companies/sponsor.html) | ||
|
|
||
| [](/companies/sponsor.html) | ||
|
|
||
| Sponsor the ASF, the Community Over Code conference, project events, | ||
| and local meetups.<br /> | ||
| [[Read more ...](/companies/sponsor.html)] | ||
|
|
||
| </div> <!-- End Sponsor --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- Advocacy--> | ||
| <div class="col-md-4"> | ||
|
|
||
| ### [Advocacy](/companies/advocacy.html) | ||
|
|
||
| [](/companies/advocacy.html) | ||
|
|
||
| Companies can advocate for ASF project adoption both publicly and with | ||
| their customers, while appropriately using open source project brands.<br /> | ||
| [[Read more ...](/companies/advocacy.html)] | ||
| </div> <!-- End Advocacy--> | ||
| </div> <!-- End Row --> | ||
|
|
||
| *The Apache Software Foundation welcomes corporate participation that aligns with our mission of providing software for the public good.* | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: Open Source Advocacy | ||
| url: /companies/advocacy.html | ||
| tags: ["companies", "advocacy", "branding"] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # Open Source Advocacy | ||
|
|
||
| Since the earliest days of the Apache Software Foundation, companies | ||
| have built their business and reputation around ASF projects, and we | ||
| have always encouraged that. We, in turn, depends on the good will of | ||
| companies. How companies speak about ASF projects is a critical part of | ||
| our public image. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Respect Our Brands | ||
|
|
||
| Like any organization, the ASF has [Trademark | ||
| Policy](https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/) which describes | ||
| appropriate and inappropriate ways to use the brand of the ASF, and of | ||
| ASF projects. We expect companies to familiarize themselves with these | ||
| policies, just as they would when working with another company or | ||
| partner. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Be Proactive About Education | ||
|
|
||
| Be sure that anyone speaking on behalf of your company understands | ||
| and respects the [ASF Trademark | ||
| Policy](https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/). Most violations of | ||
| these policies have historically come from company spokespeople who do | ||
| not understand the nature of the ASF, or of open source software, and | ||
| speak of our projects like just another of your company's products. | ||
|
|
||
| Be proactive about educating these individuals about appropriate ways to | ||
| speak about these projects. Use this website as a reference, and | ||
| encourage them to talk directly to projects if they have any questions | ||
| about how best to represent your work in and around these communities. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Community First | ||
|
|
||
| When you mention ASF projects, we ask that you put the community first. | ||
| It's great to celebrate what your company and employees are doing in and | ||
| around ASF projects - we welcome and encourage that! - but be sure to | ||
| give credit where it's due. The community as a whole makes our projects | ||
| work, and contributes to your success. | ||
|
|
||
| Some companies make claims about their involvement in ASF projects that | ||
| imply that they own the project, or are primarily responsible for it. | ||
| Phrases like "creators of ..." or "primary contributors to ..." devalue | ||
| the work that the rest of the community does, and unfairly take credit | ||
| for the work that others have done to contribute to your success. We ask | ||
| that you not do that. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: Benefits of Open Source Participation | ||
| url: /companies/benefits.html | ||
| tags: ["companies", "benefits", "business value"] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # Benefits of ASF Participation | ||
|
|
||
| Companies that actively participate in ASF projects realize significant | ||
| strategic and operational advantages that extend far beyond cost savings. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think the introduction in How about tweaking the first paragraph like this?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I personally think this is quite against the spirit of the ASF to suggest that this way. Wth the Apache Way, the whole idea is that individuals act on their own behalf, and with the direction of the project not being "skewed" unnecessarily by the fact that the company employs committers and PMC members. Of course that's a bit of idealistic approach to think that employees interests are neglected by their employees - that would be insane to think tihs is happening. However I think in this case this work in a bit of a different direction (Ideally - according to how ASF model of influence on the project should work). I think by employing committers and PMC members, what company achieves is not "influencing the trajectory" directly, but making PMC members and committers incentives more aligned with the company interests. There is a subtle difference there - as a company management you should not be able to "tell" those PMC members what to approve and what to not approve, you can tell them what is the overall direction the company is going and let those PMC members and committers decide what they do - whether it aligns with this direction, or not. I think "influence the trajectory" might be understood more of "tell employees what changes they should implement and release" - which of course happens. But it has nothing to do with what "committer" status gives. Committers can "approve" things. Anyone can implement them. What you implement and submit as a PR to the project (as employee) is logically different thing that what you "accept" as a "committer". Your employee can tell you to "work on something" but they cannot tell you to "get something merged" - not formally and legally according to the ICLA every committer and PMC member signs.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I really like your point about 'alignment of incentives.' Perhaps we can frame it this way: Having employees who are committers ensures that the company's use cases and business context are deeply understood within the PMC. It’s not about a manager telling a committer what to merge (which violates the ICLA), but about the committer bringing a pragmatic, real-world perspective to the decision-making table. This naturally bridges the gap between the project's roadmap and the company's needs.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it's a bit too detailed of a description that has no "i instantly understand it" vibe. I think this is what @rbowen also wants to achieve here (that's my understanding) that the message is "short" and "easy to grasp" even by somoene who does not understand how Open source works in detail - so this should be rather on a "slogan" side of things. So in a sense "influence project trajectory" is a good "slogan" - even if ti can be a little too much crossing the "line" that ASF puts on the project decision making. I would rather formulate it in a way that is positive, but also asserively sets the boundaries and is very "open" about communicating ASF position. For example: "While companies, cannot directly influence direction of the project, when you hire committers and PMC members, their incentives are naturally more aligned with your company goals".
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the alignment angle. Just a nit: Starting a 'Benefits' section with a negative ('While companies cannot...') might be less appealing. How about we flip it to focus on the positive 'bridging' aspect first?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. But companies can directly influence the direction of a project. That's something that we actively solicit, and should optimize for. I'm not a big fan of pretending that's not the case. It leads to pretty actively confusing companies. We ask them to participate, and scold them when they do. This entire set of documents is explicitly intended to combat that. (Other remarks here seem to be about previous versions of this doc that no longer survive, so I'm not sure what they're in reference to. Perhaps another pass is warranted?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not saying it's different. Quite the contrary. I am even proposing to explain how (by aligining incentives). What I am really telling that "influence the project" is ambiguous. And can be understood differently. There are quite a few projects that have more influence than what we want - maybe because we leave the "influence" up for interpretation. I think it should be clear that "people" have decision making power, where their decisions might be subject to having aligned incentives. That leaves explicitly power for the people to decide, where companies might only do everything to make people incentivised, but not telling them what to do. I think being explicit is better than implicit here. Having explicit statement about it so that those people can simply send links to their employees - "look I am just following what ASF expects, and my decision is different than what you asked me to do" is very powerful for the individuals. If we leave it as "influence", then the manager will be entitled to say "but ASF wrote that I can have influence, so they want you to follow what I tell you". I think It's a chance to not be vague about it. But be very clear that we expect employees who contribute to ASF to make their own decisions. Just stating it at the page where we say "companies can have influence" does not seem a bad idea I think?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It might be cultural difference where I prefer to say "be careful, but do it" rather than "do it, but be careful". But I am perfectly OK with it as long as it is clear that the decision making stay with individuals who contribute - no matter their "employment/contracting" status. And that it's ok if their decisions are different than their employees/ This is where "aligining the incentives" play a big role - because it means that they cannot "expect" that people will follow their goals, but that they should make it so that their employees want to do so. |
||
| It's important to think strategically about how, where, and why you will | ||
| participate and measure impact. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Influence the Roadmap | ||
|
|
||
| While it can sometimes take months, or years, to gain expertise and | ||
| trust in an established community, showing up to do the daily | ||
| project maintenance -- issue and PR triage; reviewing PRs; planning and | ||
| executing community events; answering user questions -- you'll quickly | ||
| begin to establish that you can be trusted, which will make it easier | ||
| for you to influence the direction of the project. | ||
|
|
||
| Decisions about the direction of Apache projects are made by the people | ||
| who show up to participate in the conversation. If you don't join the | ||
| conversation, then your competitors will decide how tomorrow's | ||
| technology will shape up. | ||
|
|
||
| Make sure someone on your team is reading the project [mailing | ||
| lists](https://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html) every day, | ||
| and advocating for your priorities. That's what community means -- | ||
| showing up to own the future of the project. | ||
|
|
||
| While trust does not necessarily transfer to other employees, over time, | ||
| as project participants see your company actively contributing to the | ||
| project, and demonstrating ownership, they'll be more willing to work | ||
| with you. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Recruiting | ||
|
|
||
| By working upstream on projects, you directly showcase to potential | ||
| employees what they might be working on. This helps attract the right | ||
| kind of talent to work on your priorities, and they'll begin to see your | ||
| company as a partner in the project, and an attractive place to work. | ||
|
|
||
| Being involved in the day-to-day life of the project | ||
| gives you direct access to the most qualified people in the world to | ||
| work on your team. And you know they'll be arriving with the skills you | ||
| need. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Business and Strategic Advantages | ||
|
|
||
| For more than 25 years, the ASF has been a place where industry | ||
| standards have been set and implemented. Collaborating in those | ||
| projects is the most effective way to shape industry standards and best | ||
| practices. You'll be building trust with current and potential | ||
| customers, and building strategic partnerships with other companies | ||
| working in the same space. | ||
|
|
||
| And by collaborating with your peers on the common tasks, you'll be able | ||
| to better focus on your unique business differentiators. | ||
| Collaborate on what all share; Compete where you excel. | ||
|
|
||
| *The benefits of open source participation compound over time, creating | ||
| sustainable competitive advantages and fostering innovation that drives | ||
| long-term business success.* | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I fall victim of that far too often - specifying a number of things listed below is just very prone to get wrong when the list grows or shrinks.