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

[Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>]

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@mit.edu>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
> ---
>  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 seems fine to me.

>  * 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.

This really cannot be dropped -- companies must factor upstream work
into performance reviews or it will continue to be seen as "free time"
work, and employees won't be recognized for their upstream contributions.
If an org has no perf reviews, this item is already nullified, IMO.

>  * 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
> +  other goals.

This seems fine to me.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook