Roland Weber wrote:
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about open source participation. It is either "on private time", such as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an individual. Or it is "on company time". Then the person is doing what he or she is paid for. And if IBM is changing it's priorities, or the line item that required OSS participation is closed, plenty of other work will be dumped on that person, simply leaving no (work) time for OSS participation. Yes, Apache attaches all merits to the individual. But you cannot reasonably expect individuals that got paid for working on an Apache project to continue their involvement at a comparable level on private time, nor "judge" them for retiring. The ultimate cause of reduced activity here would be the employer's decision, not the individual's.
You are absolutely right... Perhaps we should force all initial committers to divulge if they are strictly involved in the effort as a work assignment, or if they have a broader interest in the new podling? And certainly, we should judge contributing corporations on their prior projects successes and failures, and this should be one of the many factors that go into the +/-1 decision of accepting a project. Not the only factor, but one of many. The failure of corporations to 'play nice with each other' is also one of those factors, if they are capable of participating in an open, transparent and collaborative development methodology required at and by the ASF. That said, we never "judge" people per-say for choosing to move on to some other projects or interest in their lives. The code is here for the public, and if the public can't be bothered to contribute, then it's simply shelved. No different than any commercial technology when a company looses interest in it. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
