On 3 January 2016 at 00:12, Paul Moore <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 2 January 2016 at 13:46, M.-A. Lemburg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I guess the PSF could refund any Github charges incurred to
>> remedy the situation. Their smallest plan is USD 7 per month
>> and account, so that would mean costs of USD 84 per year and
>> committer - this certainly within range of what the PSF can
>> provide without problem.
> Alternatively, would it be worth reaching out to Github to ask if they
> would be willing to allow an exception? The condition seems intended
> to disallow spamming or camping of accounts, which clearly isn't the
> case here.
> Note: I have no direct interest in this, as I only use my github
> account for personal activities, so the issue doesn't affect me.
I use my own GitHub account for both personal projects and for work,
but Red Hat's open source contribution policies are probably the most
liberal on the planet, so I don't have any need to separate them.
Ditto for me and Microsoft.
However, it's also the case that if an employer is simultaneously:
1. Expecting employees to maintain a clear separation between personal
and paid activity on GitHub; and
2. Refusing to pay for dedicated GitHub work accounts for their employees
Then there's a contradiction between their expectations and their
failure to provide employees with the resources needed to meet those
I also know of people whose company is being mean to them by saying "we expect you to use your single free account for us and it's your problem if you want a clean separation because we're too cheap to pay for your own account" getting around this by ignoring the ToS restriction. Obviously not everyone will feel comfortable doing that, but I have never known anyone to have their GitHub account shut down because they had separate work and personal accounts that were both on the free tier.
But as MAL said, the PSF could easily cover the fee for a core dev to get a paid micro account if someone felt they really wanted it.