Hi Paul,

Thanks for the great feedback! You make a good point. Although, I think
Pivotal have earned their fair share of mentions. Also companies, which are
named, are investing a great deal in development of Cloud Foundry and also
deserve recognition by name, in my opinion. Where this breaks down is in
situations where the person speaking on the CAB call is not from the same
company as those working on the component. For instance, I believe all the
developers of the CLI are all from IBM, but the update will come from the
PM who works for Pivotal. This cross-pollination of developers fom
different companies is a great thing and what seems to be aim of the Dojos.
So, yes, the "..from Pivotal" may not be fully representative of all the
contributions of all parties and it would be good to find a way to expose
this information in communications such as these CAB notes. I'll have a
think about this for the next one.

Cheers,
Phil

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Paul Sherwood <
paul.sherwood(a)codethink.co.uk> wrote:

On 2015-06-12 21:19, Phil Whelan wrote:

Ive just posted a write-up of the Cloud Foundry Advisory Board Meeting
from Wednesdays meeting.


http://www.activestate.com/blog/2015/06/cloud-foundry-advisory-board-meeting-2015-june
[1]

Thanks for this - it's a great write-up. One thing I noticed as a newbie
here - lots of '.. from Pivotal'.

I very much appreciate that Pivotal is leading and contributing to the
project in many ways, but I believe CF aims to become more inclusive and
involve more non-Pivotal folks. So it might be worth considering for future
just to name the contributors without mentioning their employer, to avoid
creating the false impression that only Pivotal folks are contributing.

br
Paul

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev