On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 07:41:57PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > The Linux Contribution Maturity Model methodology is notionally based on > the Open source Maturity Model (OMM) which was in turn based on the > Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). > > According to Petrinja et al., the goal of the OMM was to extend the CMMI > so as to be useful both for companies and for communities [1][2]. However, > the Linux Contribution Maturity Model considers only companies and > businesses. > > This patch addresses this bias as it could hinder collaboration with > not-for-profit organisations and individuals, which would be a loss to > any stakeholder. > > Level 5 is amended to remove the invitation to exercise the same bias > i.e. employees rewarded indirectly by other companies. > > [1] Petrinja, E., Nambakam, R., Sillitti, A.: Introducing the > OpenSource Maturity Model. In: 2nd Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research > and Development Workshop at ICSE 2009, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2009) > > [2] Wittmann, M., Nambakam, R.: Qualipso Deliverable A6.D1.6.3 > CMM-like model for OSS. > > Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst | 9 ++++----- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst > index b87ab34de22c..863a2e4c22e2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst > @@ -62,8 +62,8 @@ Level 3 > ======= > > * Software Engineers are expected to review patches (including patches > - authored by engineers from other companies) as part of their job > - responsibilities > + authored by contributors from outside of the organization) as part of > + their job responsibilities This is fine, but: > * Contributing presentations or papers to Linux-related or academic > conferences (such those organized by the Linux Foundation, Usenix, > ACM, etc.), are considered part of an engineer’s work. > @@ -103,7 +103,6 @@ Level 5 > > * Upstream kernel development is considered a formal job position, with > at least a third of the engineer’s time spent doing Upstream Work. > -* Organizations will actively seek out community member feedback as a > - factor in official performance reviews. Why are you removing this? I write more performance reviews now than I have have in my life, all for companies that I do NOT work for. That's a good thing as it shows these orginizations value the feedback of the community as a reflection on how well those employees are doing at their assigned job. Why are you removing that very valid thing? > * Organizations will regularly report internally on the ratio of > - Upstream Work to work focused on directly pursuing business goals. > + Upstream Work to work focused on directly pursuing the organisation's This is a good change. thanks, greg k-h
