On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 13:50 +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2023, James Bottomley wrote: > > > 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. > > > > That's not a correct characterization. The model is designed to > > measure and be useful to businesses, but it definitely considers > > the community because it's progress is built around being more > > useful to and working more effectively with the community. > > > > You're right, the characterization I gave does exaggerate the bias. I > shall moderate that if I resubmit the patch. > > > > 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. > > > > I don't really think changing 'Businesses' to 'Organizations' > > entirely addresses what you claim is the bias because individuals > > would still be excluded from the term 'Organizations'. I also > > don't really think it matters. Part of the reason this whole thing > > doesn't matter is that sometimes people do know who a contributor > > they work with works for, but most of the time they don't. > > This is not just about patches, it's also about incentives and > influence. I mentioned contributor interaction, which covers influence. I'm not sure what you mean by incentives or how it is covered by changing Businesses -> Organizations. > > > If you really want this to be inclusive, you could change it to > > 'other contributors' but I'm still not sure it's worth it. > > > > > > > > Level 5 is amended to remove the invitation to exercise the same > > > bias i.e. employees rewarded indirectly by other companies. > > > > I also wouldn't remove the bit about seeking upstream feedback on > > employees; I know from personal experience it happens a lot. > > > > If it happens a lot already, why compel employers to seek it? Because it's a sign of open source maturity on behalf of a company. Lots do it, but lots don't. By putting it in the maturity model we want to encourage it. > It's worth noting that the model compels employers to seek "community > member feedback" which is not the same as the "upstream feedback" > that you describe. It isn't? How else does a community express itself except by its agents which are ipso facto community members? Not all community members have identical opinions, but if you talk to several you'll get a good sense of community feedback. James
