On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:13 PM Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> 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 <tapper.gun...@gmail.com> > 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.* > >
