Add criteria under <details> element #26

staltz · 2017-06-26T15:33:30Z

For issue #22, this is just a first draft.

(The <details> element is handy to collapse/expand the criteria without cluttering the page)

kof · 2017-06-26T15:44:34Z

README.md

+<p><strong>The goal of this list</strong> is to highlight companies which do the right thing by paying back to open source projects, because IT companies are often use hundreds of open source projects as a foundation for their software. Open source development is clearly very important for IT systems and products used world-wide, so sponsoring open source must become commonplace. This list is meant to encourage sponsoring practices.</p>
+  <h3>Definitions</h3>
+  <ul>
+    <li>COMPANY: a legal entity made to generate to profit.</li>


"to generate to profit" sounds like a typo?

Also what about non-profit organizations but with funding?

I kind of feel like non-profits should be excluded because I would assume most open source maintainers are glad in letting their projects be used "for free" for good causes.

(and yes that was a typo)

I kind of feel like non-profits should be excluded because I would assume most open source maintainers are glad in letting their projects be used "for free" for good causes.

Sure, but the definition does mean that non-profits who invest into open source can't be on that list)

The thing is I know a company who is non-profit and who does invest into open source and who tries to hire people and it would be unfair to them to not be able to get into that list.

Well, maybe. I see this list as "companies that make profit but pay back". That said, we could have a "non-profits" section.

This or it simply should't matter how much money a company earns or none. Also think of state organizations.

Also think of all the startups, who most of the time just burning investors money. And yet open source is not considered as one of their expenses.

There should be absolutely no problem for a startup with 500k seed investment to give 1k or something per year away for open source.

kof · 2017-06-26T15:47:49Z

README.md

+  <h3>Criteria for inclusion</h3>
+  <p>In order for an entry to be accepted into this list, the following criteria must be met</p>
+  <ul>
+    <li>Each entry is a COMPANY which systematically SPONSORS some THIRD-PARTY OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS.</li>


Q: Is it a good thing to call it sponsoring? Isn't "investing" or "paying back" a better term?

Sponsoring sounds to me like something you could do if you want to be a good person. I personally would try to express a stronger necessity than that.

I kind of prefer sponsorship, probably because my ex-employer Futurice used it: https://spiceprogram.org/

I see investment as expectancy of ROI, in other words getting in channel X more than you give in channel X (where X here is usually money). I see sponsorship as giving in one kind (e.g. money) and receiving in some other kind (e.g. marketing).

Yeah, though the thing is once company starts using a project, they already got something, so ROI happened before they even started investing. So maybe paying back is the right term?

Other possible word: support.

Yeah , support sounds ok to me too.

abitrolly · 2017-06-26T16:11:42Z

README.md

-##### Each company should: (1) have a name, (2) have a link to blog post or page demonstrating that you sponsor some open source projects or employee hobby projects.
+<details>
+<summary><em>Click here to read the criteria to be on this list</em></summary>
+<p><strong>The goal of this list</strong> is to highlight companies which do the right thing by paying back to open source projects, because IT companies are often use hundreds of open source projects as a foundation for their software. Open source development is clearly very important for IT systems and products used world-wide, so sponsoring open source must become commonplace. This list is meant to encourage sponsoring practices.</p>


...highlight companies who pay back to open source projects that are helping them to save time and money. Open source maintainers are often an invisible and underfunded workforce behind our informational infrastructure. With this list we would like to encourage more companies to be aware of that and play active role in supporting our common grounds.

Sounds better than what I wrote. :)

staltz · 2017-06-26T16:16:27Z

Updated it, see the last 2 commits in the PR.

kof · 2017-06-26T16:18:12Z

Should we address non-profits, state organizations and startups without a revenue in a separate PR?

staltz · 2017-06-26T16:19:14Z

Yes, I think so, specially because we don't have any non-profit yet in the list (except Mozilla, but they are part corporation, part non-profit) or in PRs.

kof · 2017-06-26T16:20:11Z

Yeah but startups without revenue ... its guaranted an issue.

kof · 2017-06-26T16:20:56Z

Though startups aim to have revenue at some point, so maybe we can at least have a wording that includes intention as well.

staltz · 2017-06-26T16:28:11Z

Yes, startups are made to generate profit even though they might not be currently.

COMPANY: a legal entity made to generate profit.

kof · 2017-06-26T16:29:20Z

right, then this is covered

staltz · 2017-06-26T16:30:43Z

I'll wait a bit more for other reviews before merging.

mxstbr · 2017-06-26T19:29:53Z

README.md

-##### Each company should: (1) have a name, (2) have a link to blog post or page demonstrating that you sponsor some open source projects or employee hobby projects.
+<details>
+<summary><em>Click here to read the criteria to be on this list</em></summary>
+<p><strong>The goal of this list</strong> is to highlight companies who pay back to open source projects that are helping them to save time and money. Open source maintainers are often an invisible and underfunded workforce behind our informational infrastructure. With this list we would like to encourage more companies to be aware of that and play active role in supporting our common grounds.</p>


I would put this outside of the details so the folks reading have some context on the companies included in the list?

Good point.

mxstbr · 2017-06-26T19:31:36Z

README.md

+  <h3>Criteria for inclusion</h3>
+  <p>In order for an entry to be accepted into this list, the following criteria must be met</p>
+  <ul>
+    <li>Each entry is a COMPANY which systematically SUPPORTS some THIRD-PARTY OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS.</li>


I like "open source projects that they don't control" or "external open source projects" more than "third-party"? Maybe just a nitpick, so feel free to ignore.

staltz · 2017-06-26T19:34:22Z

Should be good for merging now, I guess.

Add criteria under summary element

afb9900

staltz changed the title ~~Add criteria under summary element~~ Add criteria under <details> element Jun 26, 2017

kof reviewed Jun 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

abitrolly reviewed Jun 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

staltz added 2 commits June 26, 2017 19:14

Fix typos, rename SPONSOR to SUPPORT

415ffe9

Rewrite the "goals" paragraph before the criteria

d570bc2

kof approved these changes Jun 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

mxstbr suggested changes Jun 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

Move goals paragraph out of <details>

fd4c52f

staltz merged commit af2e7cc into master Jun 26, 2017

staltz deleted the criteria-1 branch June 26, 2017 20:34

This was referenced Jun 26, 2017

added gitlab, a remote FOSS company #16

Closed

add PayPal #25

Closed

Add bitExpert AG to the list #11

Open

Add criteria under <details> element #26

Add criteria under <details> element #26

Uh oh!

Conversation

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kof Jun 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kof Jun 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kof Jun 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kof Jun 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017

Uh oh!

kof commented Jun 26, 2017

Uh oh!

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kof commented Jun 26, 2017

Uh oh!

kof commented Jun 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017

Uh oh!

kof commented Jun 26, 2017

Uh oh!

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kof Jun 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kof Jun 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kof Jun 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kof Jun 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

staltz commented Jun 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kof commented Jun 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading