linux-kernel - [PATCH] Documentation: Linux Contribution Maturity Model and the wider community

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <cd1786eadd1ff05d9ca053b72eb5f06ceb0c470d.1687167717.git.fthain@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 19:41:57 +1000
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        tech-board-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: Linux Contribution Maturity Model and the
 wider community

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@....edu>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-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
 * 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.
 * 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.
-- 
2.39.3