Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Linux Contribution Maturity Model and the wider community

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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