Wording on https://good-labs.github.io/greater-good-pledge/

[christophernhill]

@vsoch the words that say

is not primarily composed of paid participants

on https://good-labs.github.io/greater-good-pledge/ seem a little different to the wording

The majority of contributors represent dispersed community (and not required participants for a company)

in the pledge README.md . The good-labs.github.io wording reads (to me at least) like it might exclude a lot of things (e.g. the Linux kernel) that might otherwise be candidates for joining the pledge?

[vsoch]

hey @christophernhill ! Those two statements are intended to refer to the same idea - the second is the specific bullet point criteria, and the first is a (shorter) summary. Is the first not representative of the second, and do you have a suggestion for change that would resolve your concern?

The Linux Kernel, if it's the case that the majority of contributors are not paid directly by the owning entity of the project (I don't think it's the case) would be a candidate. There are downstream companies (cough, everyone!) that use it, but the project does not aim directly to plug into these. What are your specific concerns with respect to the Linux Kernel?

And thanks for the quick feedback! This initiative is important and I want to make sure all questions are covered. One thing that might help is #5 - I'll be adding example scenarios for good candidates and (still good) but edge cases that people might wonder about.

[vsoch]

hey @christophernhill - we've had lots of changes and I wanted to check in with you for feedback! First, the pledge is not longer a pledge, it's an affirmation. It's taken in good faith (no signing of things, just read and add the badge) and much simpler and shorter. Would you have time to take a look?

https://good-labs.github.io/greater-good-affirmation/participate/