zlacker

>>Philip+(OP)
Great idea, I think there should be some conditions.

a) you should not be the owner (to avoid pet projects that are not actually useful) of the project or at least not the sole owner

b) ideally it should be some high impact projects that have little to no corpo sponsors as opposed to something like React

c) if your contribution is not merged in, it should not count as "work done"

>>netdev+p4
Would Linux count as a project with corpo sponsors?

>>denism+v5
Yeah, Linux definitely has corporate sponsors. This is not a good rule of thumb.

React is also now owned by the React Foundation, so I also don't see why it would be problematic to contribute to it now that it doesn't (seem to) belong to Facebook anymore.

>>whstl+56
I mean the foundation is still mostly governed by corpo

>>dvtkrl+U6
Isn't that true for the linux foundation?

>>RobotT+pa
To a degree. But the corporate interest is spread across enough organisations that it's much harder for the Linux kernel to reject a patch solely because it's good for business, whereas a lot of corporate open source projects - even those with an OSI approved license - will actively refuse to merge code that competes with their commercial offering or simply isn't submitted by a customer. Hashicorp already operated like this long before they switched to BSL. Unfortunately having a project owned by a foundation isn't a good indicator either, because I know of at least one Apache project where the entire membership is one company, the CEO is the project chair and code is sometimes just dropped into repos in one huge commit.