Quarkus Benefactors/Sponsor/Supporters page

[insectengine]

Create a landing page where the Quarkus project can list sponsors, benefactors and supporters.

This page would allow for recognizing companies that provide financial support and those that provide services or tech to the project.

[insectengine]

@Sanne ^

[Sanne]

Great, thank you.

The preliminary list I have is:

Commonhaus Foundation
IBM
Red Hat
AWS (donated some credits)
GitHub (donated more GitHub Actions runners)
RunsOn (gave us a free key)
Gradle Inc donated a Develocity instance
Zulip

I might be missing some - asking around as I'm not sure if we tracked this in a single place. Could this be enough to create a first sketch while we figure out if it's comprehensive?

Question: does this still belong under the "Community" menu or should we have a different "Project" top level menu?

I also believe that while we clarify Commonhaus is now the main entity behind the project we shoul also make it easier to find Enteprise Support - currently it's hidden under "Community" -> "Support" and from there one needs to find the Red Hat offering below the community one. The current solution makes sense as this is positioned under the "Community" top level menu, but it makes it unnecessarily hard to highlight that Enteprise Support is available, and one goal of the foundation would be to foster the ability to be supported by multiple and variuos different companies.

I also believe it looks good for the project in general to highlight that enteprise needs are being accounted for.

[holly-cummins]

Let's also add some wording saying that individual extensions, particularly in the Quarkiverse, may have their own sponsors, which will be listed on the Community tab of the extensions' page on http://quarkus.io/extensions. (As an arbitrary example, https://quarkus.io/extensions/io.quarkiverse.wiremock/quarkus-wiremock/?tab=community).

On those community pages, I'll also cross-link back to this page with some wording about sponsorship of the Quarkus project as a whole.

[insectengine]

Should we split this content up into tiers?

Sponsorships - For salaries, cash for paying for stuff
Benefactors - Free/Discount Services
Attribution/Supporters - Acknowledging use of tech where needed

[Sanne]

it's an interesting idea but seem very hard to implement fairly? e.g. if we go with salaries, then we'd have to put up logos for any company employing an occasional contributor? Then we have situations like one we heard of of a company that doesn't allow to be labelled as "sponsor" even though that's what they do, and yet expect to be listed as supported.

Just brainstorming out loud - it's late here but to get some thoughts started:

I think the main differentiation we want to higlight would be:

1. "providers of infrastructure" tools, build tool licenses, build compute power / runners, cloud credits, chat (zulip), AIs, debuggers, hosting, IDEs, issue trackers, profilers ..
2. Commonhaus: pays for things like DNS, legal infrastructure, more hosting and automation tools ..
3. Vendors of Enterprise grade support for Quarkus

For 1. I would suggest to not sub-classify too much, and it's the focus of this particular page. I believe going too much into details would be a Pandora's box.
For 2, the main source of information would be on commonhaus.org - not on this page - but we can add a reminder on this page that there's quite some support by the foundation - this might also be useful to hijack as a call-to-join and contribute which @ebullient might appreciate
For 3. there should be a separate landing page, but again we can add a reminder here that much of the core work is made possible by such vendors.

Just my 2c, I'm very keen on your opinion and others who've been structuring the pages before cc/ @holly-cummins @dandreadis

[ebullient]

this might also be useful to hijack as a call-to-join and contribute which @ebullient might appreciate

YES, PLEASE!

[insectengine]

I was batting around the idea of separation for those instances where we get something from a company but they want to be clearly labeled "Not a sponsor" verses IBM that pays salaries for many project members. Having a singular big list may not be enough separation for the "not a sponsor" types. Naming and structure TBD.

[Sanne]

ah I see what you mean. Let's not call any of these "sponsors", but something a bit broader "We thank the following companies for supporting the project" -> list of names, with brief description of what each one contributed.
Would that work better? Not sure how to call the page and navigation in the menu, could be "project supporters".

[insectengine]

"Support" can be a loaded term too as we have a "Support" page that discusses community and paid support. ;)