On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:56:06AM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 07:47:07AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > Sure, though I would add that my personal feeling is that it is a > > > possibility, not a requirement, that the maintainer's funding come from > > > either an independent entity (like the Linux Foundation) or from a pool > > > funded by industry leaders. > > > > > > I say that only to point out that while Junio is employed by Google, I > > > don't think any of us would doubt his impartiality with regard to the > > > project. > > > > Oh, yes, and I've explicitly mentioned that Junio is doing an awesome > > job of that indeed. But I see the employment by Google as kind of an > > outlier here, because Google itself is not really competing in the Git > > ecosystem. They do not sell a Git-based product directly to customers as > > both GitHub and GitLab do, to the best of my knowledge. > > I think your argument looses some subtlety here. Indeed, Google does not > sell a SaaS product based on Git like GitHub and GitLab do. But they > most certainly use Git extensively within Google. And I imagine that the > engineering team working on Git at Google has certain things that they > would like the project to do that would benefit Google's use of Git. Using Git internally is kind of a different thing compared to selling Git directly to customers though. Google also isn't (to the best of my knowledge) benefitting directly from being able to say that one of its employees is the head of Git. And I think that is where things start to fall apart, because I think that it would give a certain advantage to whichever large forge hosts. For one part that may be because of being able to push through things that the other forge cannot. But the more likely scenario is that this is a huge boon to that company's marketing department. So even if the maintainer would be impartial, I doubt that the company as a whole would be. > But what I don't see is Google benefiting unfairly by employing the > maintainer. So as long as Junio continues to maintain that impartiality, > I don't see any problem with him being employed by Google. > > The other aspect of this is that it is Junio's personal choice where > they would like to work. Is it possible to organize some kind of shared > funding model? Perhaps (though I am personally not convinced). But I > think that imposing that model on Junio is not fair to him. Junio may > wish to work at Google for other reasons (e.g., perhaps he likes the > benefits, his work environment, benefits from his tenure there, etc.). > > As long as Junio remains impartial, I do not see why the project should > dictate his choice of employer. Or IOW, if Junio woke up tomorrow with a > job offer from GitLab or GitHub (or any other company), I do not think > the project should dictate that he turn it down, or mandate that he be > replaced as maintainer for exercising his personal choice. But I haven't ever been talking about changing the _current_ model, and I do not intend to change the way Junio is employed. As you rightfully say, this would certainly cross a line. I am talking about a potential future where Junio may not be maintaining Git anymore, due to whatever reason. > IOW, I think that the maintainer's impartiality is the most important > aspect of this. So long as the maintainer is impartial, I don't see why > they can't work at any company they choose. Exactly, that is my own take, as well. And I personally do not believe that this is compatible with being employed by any of the large forges. > > > I think as long as the maintainer's employer does not unfairly influence > > > the maintainer's decisions on their behalf, then it is OK. > > > > So yes, I would probably be okay with a maintainer that is employed by a > > company which I don't see as competing in this space. But I would > > strongly disagree with this statement if the intent were to ever have a > > GitHub or GitLab employee become the single maintainer. > > > > Impartiality is only one part of the picture here. The other part is > > that Git would start to feel like a project owned by that company. There > > simply is too much political tension for this to work out in the long > > term, in my opinion. > > Again, I don't really see how this is the case. Git does not feel like a > Google project to me, even though Junio is employed by Google. I think > as long as the maintainer is impartial with respect to their employer, > then their individual choice of employer should not matter. As I said: Google is a bit of a special case. Another big part here is also history given that Junio has been maintaing Git _before_ he has joined Google, to the best of my knowledge. > > So if we do not have an individual at the ready that is independent, > > then I would strongly favor a model where the maintainer role is shared > > across a group of people. > > Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't really see how this > model would work. Well, it certainly would be a bigger remodeling of how things work right now, and I do not have an answer right now. Patrick
