Okay I'm not sure this is well thought out, at least the sign on procedure is not. Here is a series of messages they present to the user:
1. It is for companies with dedicated resources for open source projects.
2. The person signing on has to mention the company he is with, so ideally a person from the "dedicated resource" or open source department of a prospective company?
3. They exist to discuss "how to shift ownership of projects from companies to the community".
So as a person of an open source department at their company, one is expected to join this to help their company render their department useless?
They should bake it better and present it to the right person.
First off, we can probably agree that not every corporate open source project is one that the community expresses an interest in. For those projects without community interest, this is moot.
For projects that the community does have an interest in, it can easily become unwieldy for a company to try and lead an open source project for a variety of reasons. I see it as beneficial to the company and the community for the community to gradually assume ownership of projects they are interested in.
Even if the community takes the project in a direction the company doesn't like, the company can always fork, or revert to an earlier version and continue. It seems like a win-win to me.
Certainly as someone in a company's open source program, we should talk :) I am too.
Sometimes even company projects reach a level of maturity at which they can feasibly graduate to community or foundational ownership.
At Facebook, both React and HHVM have a stated interest in pursuing this outcome for example - but I'm pretty sure this does not make my role redundant any more than a teacher becomes redundant once their oldest pupils leave school each year :)
Comments
Okay I'm not sure this is well thought out, at least the sign on procedure is not. Here is a series of messages they present to the user:
1. It is for companies with dedicated resources for open source projects.
2. The person signing on has to mention the company he is with, so ideally a person from the "dedicated resource" or open source department of a prospective company?
3. They exist to discuss "how to shift ownership of projects from companies to the community".
So as a person of an open source department at their company, one is expected to join this to help their company render their department useless?
They should bake it better and present it to the right person.
I kind of read that a bit differently.
First off, we can probably agree that not every corporate open source project is one that the community expresses an interest in. For those projects without community interest, this is moot.
For projects that the community does have an interest in, it can easily become unwieldy for a company to try and lead an open source project for a variety of reasons. I see it as beneficial to the company and the community for the community to gradually assume ownership of projects they are interested in.
Even if the community takes the project in a direction the company doesn't like, the company can always fork, or revert to an earlier version and continue. It seems like a win-win to me.
Certainly as someone in a company's open source program, we should talk :) I am too.
Sometimes even company projects reach a level of maturity at which they can feasibly graduate to community or foundational ownership.
At Facebook, both React and HHVM have a stated interest in pursuing this outcome for example - but I'm pretty sure this does not make my role redundant any more than a teacher becomes redundant once their oldest pupils leave school each year :)