-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
TSC Subcommittee Meeting (15 Apr 2021): Partnership Program #73
Comments
Thanks Mick, for creating the issue. Will post here the recommendation that I sent out to the other thread. |
This one: |
We should have verbiage to mitigate legal risk from incoming partners in case of possible "bad actors". Maybe something simple along the lines of:
|
Exactly we need incorporate this type of language. I will work with our legal counsel to get this sorted out if necessary. |
For Ammeon representation I'll be delegating to @elewzey who was also on the call. (I lost my mic half way through...) |
Here is what LF legal proposed and so it was drafted on the https://stackstorm.com/partners-program/ (beta):
What would be the language to add to that statement? cc @raviorch |
Eugene,
We definitely would like to add verbiage like you mentioned below. In
the meantime, you mentioned on the TSC call that you had researched
other open source project partnership charters. Can you please provide
examples of the same so the subcommittee has a starting point instead of
reinventing the wheel. This would really accelerate our progress as
other open source projects may have solved most of the issues we are
seeing here. Please send this out asap as I will use that to put a draft
out before the weekend if that is available.
Ravi
…------ Original Message ------
From: "Eugen Cusmaunsa" ***@***.***>
To: "StackStorm/discussions" ***@***.***>
Cc: "raviorch" ***@***.***>; "Mention"
***@***.***>
Sent: 4/6/2021 10:43:41 AM
Subject: Re: [StackStorm/discussions] Partnership Program Subcommittee
(#73)
>We should have verbiage to mitigate legal risk from incoming partners
>in case of possible "bad actors". Maybe something simple along the
>lines of:
>
>>I, as a partner, accept to not hold StackStorm accountable [...]
>>
Here is what LF legal proposed and so it was drafted on the
https://stackstorm.com/partners-program/ (beta):
>In your [partnership] proposal, please include the following
>statement:
>
>>On behalf of PARTNER NAME ("Participant"), I agree that Participant
>>will comply with the StackStorm Partners Program requirements
>>published at https://stackstorm.com/partners-program/ and Linux
>>Foundation Policies published at https://lfprojects.org/policies/, as
>>updated from time to time, during our participation in the Partners
>>Program.
>>
What would be the language to add to that statement? cc @raviorch
<https://github.com/raviorch>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#73 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQHYO6U4LQTYYGPZFHXKEDDTHNB43ANCNFSM42PEP2FA>.
|
Mick, JP, Edwin, please let me know what time is the best for us to meet. I have asked Eugene to provide some examples, in the meantime here are some examples I found: https://www.mongodb.com/partners/partner-program |
@raviorch These are good examples. However, you're referring to the projects with the Open Core + Enterprise model. This is what Extreme Networks was before with the EWC. I'd imagine EXTR would absolutely need a complex multi-tier Partners Program with the Legal Agreements, etc, etc as it's a B2B partnership. This is a very different model compared to how StackStorm 100% Open Source operates under the neutral non-profit LF governance with different values and system behind. Here is an example for the Debian Open Source Partner program that was a prototype for the https://stackstorm.com/partners/ and https://stackstorm.com/partners-program/ drafts. https://www.debian.org/partners/ In short, they want to highlight orgs by providing recognition (listing on the page) as "official partner" for those significantly helping the project. StackStorm can go further and provide co-marketing opportunities (examples at RFC: StackStorm Partners, Code of Conduct and Economy #51. Similar to Debian, do you think we would be able to focus on simplicity and maintenance-free keeping in mind the Open Source community interests? |
Meeting@raviorch I can meet for either of the following
Benefits@raviorch All of the links you posted (mongo, suse, gitlab) clearly display benefits of becoming a partner (to @punkrokk's point), and I think we should outline similar benefits. @armab's proposal does have a section for it already. It mostly speaks to 2 things:
Also, I like the table presentation in the mongo partners page: Possible Tasks
LanguageMongo, gitlab, and debian, do not seem to provide language to the effect of "we'll not hold the project accountable" (if they do, it's not obvious). The partners code of conduct says a lot (esp. the conflict of interest), but I think it lacks one thing that was discussed during the TSC meeting which is: simple, visible language to say "don't sue ST2, yo". @armab, the language in the proposed draft also doesn't seem to convey that message (don't sue st2). I think the key point here is that I, as not a lawyer, don't see anything that explicitly states that ST2 won't be liable. It's possible it's buried in the verbiage somewhere, but without being well versed in legal-ese, it's not clear, and I suspect that the same will be true for others, so clear, concise language might be helpful? Possible Tasks
|
Thursday, April 15 at 3 PM Eastern would work for me |
Thanks @mickmcgrath13. I will join the meeting with Ravi. |
Invites sent! Let me know if you did not receive them. |
Perhaps then we could merge what the LF recommended to us with the proposed "non-accountable" wording:
|
@mickmcgrath13 Can you retitle this issue with the date of the meeting and update the issue description? See #74, #75, and #76 for examples. I haven't received an invite, but we should be publicly announcing these meetings anyway. |
2021-04-15 - Meeting notesDiscussion about Ravi's proposalScreenshared the proposal.. Ravi will upload/share Liability/Indemnification discussionMain goal is to remove liability from partners to stackstorm. Just include: "partner agrees StackStorm liable"
Outcome: in the email they send which will be outlined in the landing page Common partner contributionsTypes of contributions that can be made. Opportunities for badges?
Recommendation: Badges based on categories of expertise. Should add a note that a more structured partner program will come after a certain threshold of partners exist. Threshold TBD. What can stackstorm give back to partnersReally the only way today is to highlight the partners as well as mutual promotion (blogs, webinars, etc). Next Steps
Video Recordinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/179qnP_s0Y3AGTLdUIj_-_twds9fx66mp/view |
Partners program draft doc by @raviorch : https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1x4-9cX-hrvogrSoLc2FE63BH91dUGN9E |
..also, I did record the call. I'll link it here as soon as I can find where it went :P |
@raviorch fyi: i updated the doc so that anyone can comment but only some can edit |
Here's the recording of the meeting from 2021-04-15: |
There have been several comments/suggestions to the doc: I think most could be simply resolved (cc @raviorch ). I'm happy to do it :) There are some that will require further discussion, though |
All changes from the doc have been updated in the draft Next Steps
|
We've generally decided that the labels will be based on the table headers. I've set up some common symbols to be able to be re-used and added as labels per entry in the partners page: Next steps:
|
Just discussed it in the TSC the screenshot/sketch. This is very helpful to get a visible idea of it, thanks a lot @mickmcgrath13 ! A few comments:
|
@armab I agree the large labels are a bit much. Icons with tooltips are doable and gives the best of both worlds. Placing icons beside the partner name is tricky with the thrive architect, so below the name would be easier. We can do icons below easily with a tooltip: Also, I'm not sure I understand this:
and this:
are we going with the 4 icons which are currently the headers of the table in the draft page? if not, what all labels/icons do we need? Currently, we have: If this is not what we want for the labels, please recommend a list of labels (and associated icons). IMO, these 4 'categories' should be sufficient until such time as a partner says "i'd like something different" |
also, fyi, to add the labels, do the following:
|
💯 That would work! 👍 @mickmcgrath13 Or even switching from Thrive Architect to raw HTML for that page is OK too to make the icons inline. After all, we used the tool to get this page initially working and with a stable Partners version we won't need to implement anything new. Just edit old partners and add new ones. Eventually, it'll be static HTML anyways as we migrate out from the WordPress. |
I went down the plain HTML route before, and it didn't seem quite as straight-forward as I had hoped. I found a way to get the icons beside the partner with Thrive, anyway:
It's also helpful to make use of the copy functionality as it copies all the preset settings from the module that is copied. |
Official Vote here: #80 |
Closing as all the pages are live! |
April 2021 @StackStorm/tsc 1 hour meeting will take place on Thursday, 15th Apr 2021, 12:00 PM US Pacific.
This event has a video call.
Join: https://meet.google.com/tdq-xvwo-mnu
(US) +1 650-735-3248 PIN: 128167492#
View more phone numbers: https://tel.meet/tdq-xvwo-mnu?pin=2872811864098&hs=7
Purpose
To decide on a partnership program. Many of these discussion topics will have been answered or discussed in other issues (like this one). This issue is meant to aggregate them and start a subcommittee to take them forward.
Goals
Deadline
Final draft by next ST2 TSC meeting
Governance
Anyone can join and contribute ideas.
Led initially by 4 partners:
Amanda McGuinness (@amanda11)Edwin Lewzey (@elewzey)Rules
FAQ
Should we create/host an FAQ for a 'soft landing' of governance / conflict of interest?
Disputes
In general, consensus for involved parties should be sufficient.
If a dispute arises, how are they resolved? This could be:
Mechanics
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: