Re: Partnership comments

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

--- Muhammad Alkarouri <malkarouri at yahoo dot co dot uk> wrote:
> Some comments on the partnership doc:
> 
> - It is difficult to get a good wording on A.1 about free/open software
> projects. The current wording would make a license like M$ shared
> source, in which the source is available and you can echo changes to M$,
> within the definition. I don't think we mean that, so we need to change
> the wording to something that enables us to fork when appropriate.
> I suggest:
> 'Arabeyes will only contribute to Free/Open Software Projects in which
> source-code or any other relevant results are available to the general
> public at no charge and in which changes and modifications are allowed
> to be distributed and/or are echoed back the original author(s)'

Good catch - thanks.  I'll make the change.

> - Statement at end of B.1: The monetary involvement
>
> In my view, this is directly a kind of dictating action to the third
> party, which runs counter to the soul of the document and of A.1.
> Monetary involvement between the third party and its own employees need
> not be declared. In fact, it should not be declared. It is just like you
> asking me what is your salary. In fact, this automatically also means
> disclosure of all people working for the third party in the project,
> which I don't perceive as needed.

I think you're misunderstanding the intent of this.  We are trying to
safeguard Arabeyes from any bias or any perception of bias.  We don't
care if you get paid by 10 people to do something that helps out the
cause in general - all we ask is a note saying "I'm being compensated
for my work".  We don't care about the amounts or various details.

Case scenario (again not to reignite talk about this, but I really want
you to put yourself in Arabeyes shoes and I do know where you and
others are coming from).  Person-A comes and says "I need help and
really want project-Z done", if that person is being paid by an external
entity to get this work done (ie. has an external agenda) then all we
are asking is that he/she makes that known.  So if this person comes and
says "I was asked and am being compensated by Company-K to get project-Z
done and I need help" then I don't see any issues.

In the case of a company-K wanting to pay people to do something without
wanting their name known, then so be it.  The people being paid should
simply note that they have an external force driving them to do this
without any mention of names if they like.  A simple "I'm being compensated
for doing this (or to work on this) for a company that wants to remain
anonymous".  I don't see a pressing issue here nor do I see it as an
invasion of privacy.  As noted, we want to protect Arabeyes from any sway
or bias that others might perceive and the best way to do that is by being
fully open, fully honest and fully transparent about everything we do.

> For example, if Yoyodyne company wants to undertake a project with us to
> translate for example all of NetBSD, they shouldn't be obliged to
> disclose the names of their people working on this, nor their internal
> contracts.

I don't think we'd care about any of the details, but it would be wise to
know who's doing want.  You see arabeyes is a volunteer project and as
such we can simply ask - if people opt not to disclose that info there is
very little we can do.  If a horde of people show up to work on a project it
is wise for all to know the impetus for this - its normal human curiosity
(not from arabeyes but from all humans).  When the eglug guys started
working on Drupal and nothing else, people wanted to know why and its
normal/natural.  If a groups shows up and starts work on project-Z then
they have the full right to say "we are doing this for XX company" and
more power to them.  Arabeyes just need to be a transparent project so
that people's minds don't start wandering.

> That being said, any member of Arabeyes who works for a third party in a
> joint project with Arabeyes has to declare on what basis is his/her
> participation, paid or otherwise rewarded.

I think the point is to say if there are external rewards or compensations
involved - that's all.  This is not a negative thing and should not be
viewed as such - go find 100 people to pay you to do what you already now
do (more power to ya), but in order to keep Arabeyes out of any issues we
need not drag it into such issues.

> - Point B.5: Communication
> What does '3rd party contributors' here mean? All points mentioned here
> are of course applicable to the contact-points, but I wouldn't expect
> that all 3rd party contributors are to commit work, and I am not sure if
> this would help us either.

I'll try to reword.  The segmentation of people should have been noted
more clearly (volunteers vs. 3rd-party contributors).

> Taking Munzir's case as an example, he mentioned that his people are not
> well versed in using CVS. I guess this is solved by the (barring any
> technical extremes) exception. However, this does not include the need
> to review every contribution from the third party by their legal
> department/QA department, which may mean controlled access to the
> outside world, so all commits may come from one person. Is this case
> included?

Well, this is not a legal document.  The idea is that we want people to
follow a normal well-established methodology on how things are done.  We
don't and won't want to get into special scenarios and circumstances and
do keep in mind that a big part of what Arabeyes is all about is "education".
So it seems befitting for us to ask people to learn about the process
(CVS, mailing-lists, etc) and about the virtues behind what it is that
we all do (if out of those 100 employees we get 1 person to really like
the "idea" behind Arabeyes then we've accomplished a very important goal).

> - Point C.2: Attached Donations
> Surely it is a bit extreme. If almawrid dictionary wants to donate to
> word list or qamoose, need it find a third project for choice given that
> its interests are only in these areas? Assuming that a faculty of
> mathematical sciences wants to donate to Bayani, should it find a new
> mathematical relation in ITL and discover its interest in the
> mathematical aspects of bicon to donate? What if a company wants to
> donate servers?

The point is with regard to "funds" - if people want to donate material
(word-lists, expertise, encouragement plaques :-) then by all means and
C.2 won't apply as those are not funds.  As for servers, sure given they
are not specific to one project (the rule would apply then).  Again this
brings us back to the points above.  We do _not_ want to be biased or
perceived as such.  We don't want to have a "we'll do anything for money
mentality" surrounding Arabeyes or even be mentioned in the same breath.
We want, as is stated on our various docs and pages on the website, to
hold Arabeyes is much higher regard than most things we touch and we want
to upkeep its sanctity (in an earthly manner - don't get weird on me :-)

> -Point C.3: Attached Individual Donations
> I would rename this as 'Attached Donations to Individuals' or another
> suitable name because I first understood it as an attached donation as
> in C.2 made by an individual.

Noted.

Thanks Muhammad for your notes.  I really appreciate the various places
where you point out mistakes and/or issues (or things you don't believe
in or oppose), but most of all I really really appreciate you being
constructive and presenting alternatives as well as wording.  Its one
thing to simply say "NO, this is wrong" and another to say "NO, its
wrong because of ... and it would be better to say ..." and that is
much appreciated.

Back to productive work :-)

Salam.

 - Nadim



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail