-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 185
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Pattern Draft] innersource-contractor-model-terms #378
Draft
claredillon
wants to merge
8
commits into
InnerSourceCommons:main
Choose a base branch
from
claredillon:patch-2
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
06fd1c1
Create innersource-contractor-model-terms
claredillon b6c408a
Renaming file to .md + Fixing some spacing
spier d0b2b8d
Add spacing before list
spier 1177ec8
Removing some trailing spaces
spier eb3494c
More spacing fixes
spier 34d8b51
Spacing
spier 607cbd5
Add Status
spier 2d93c83
Wording fix
spier File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ | ||
## Title | ||
|
||
InnerSource Contractor Model Terms | ||
|
||
## Patlet | ||
|
||
Contract developers are often not motivated to engage in InnerSource activities. This patlet includes some terms which could be included in their initial contract to ensure engagement in the InnerSource process. | ||
|
||
## Problem | ||
|
||
Contractor developers are often not motivated (through forces described below) to not engage in InnerSource activities. Once delivered, and even if the code is made visible, their projects are often less likely to be part of successful InnerSourced engagements. | ||
|
||
## Context | ||
|
||
This problem exists where an organization either: | ||
|
||
- Out-sources the development of a well defined project or | ||
- Engagages external firms for staff augmentation and has mixed teams of permanent employees with a large percentage of contract staff. | ||
|
||
## Forces | ||
|
||
Contractor Motivation and Constraints: | ||
|
||
- Often contracts with third party developers are very focused on delivering an end result in the fastest possible fashion. As a result, all InnerSource activities (e.g. responding to third party PRs) are considered to be distractions or something that will “slow down” ultimate delivery. | ||
- There is also often a concern that accepting code from other parts of the business might introduce security risks, scope creep or other issues that would subsequently have to be resolved by the contract team. | ||
- Above and beyond the idea that InnerSource may slow down the project, there is often an additional concern that accepting PRs from other parts of the company may “muddy the waters” when it comes to assessing what parts of the project were completed/delivered by the contracted developers. | ||
|
||
All of the above can mean that even if an individual contract developer wants to engage in InnerSource, there may be system-level constraints pushing them not to. | ||
|
||
It should be noted that the above scenario is indirectly impacted by: | ||
|
||
- The norms around defining Statements of Work for third party contractors | ||
- Pressures to reduce contractor costs during procurement | ||
- Ability to tie contributions to payment at a granular level. | ||
|
||
It could also be noted that the Contractor's motivations in this instance is almost like a more extreme instance of the oft-reported organizational/budgetary constraints that might exist for some internal business units. (Not sure if this is relevant, but it does seem to be an extreme case of what is reported as common objections even in internal teams). | ||
|
||
## Solutions | ||
|
||
At the outset of any new project, ensure terms of the contract and Statement of Work reference InnerSource goals and the expected roles that can be played by individual contractors. | ||
|
||
Specific examples include: | ||
|
||
- Role Definitions: At the beginning of every project, contractors are explicitly assigned roles such as Admin, Contributor, Reader or InnerSource roles such Trusted Committer / Contributor. | ||
- Specific InnerSource Goals and/or time to be allocated to InnerSource initiative: e.g. Allocated time to reviewing PRs from outside the team; response time goals to respond to PRs from others. | ||
- Specific guidelines on decision-making processes to decide how SOW may change as a result of PRs that come during the implementation of the project. | ||
|
||
(Derek Murawsky will hopefully have more info/details/examples to add there) | ||
|
||
Implicit in these new terms is a move away from a rigid SOW with a hard deadline and set of deliverables. | ||
|
||
## Resulting Context | ||
|
||
This patlet can help re-define standard contract terms with software development vendors. When implemented, it gives individual contractors permission and guarantees reward for engaging in the InnerSource process. | ||
spier marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
The end result should also be more sustainable code for the contracting organization. | ||
|
||
## Known Instances (optional) | ||
|
||
Some community participants have seen this approach work with their clients. Derek Murawsky can add details as appropriate. | ||
|
||
## Status (optional until merging) | ||
|
||
TBD | ||
spier marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
## Author(s) (optional) | ||
|
||
Clare Dillon (v.0 assuming others will add themselves in this section as we flesh it out). | ||
|
||
## Acknowledgements (optional) | ||
|
||
Particular thanks to Gil Yehuda for raising the issue in the InnerSource Slack channel and Derek Murawsky for sharing his approach. | ||
|
||
This pattern was extracted from a conversation on the topic held with the following folks: | ||
spier marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
- Brittany Istenes | ||
- Clare Dillon | ||
- Cristina Coffey | ||
- Derek Murawsky | ||
- Gil Yehuda | ||
- Zack Koppert |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe it goes beyond this. There are two main forms of contract in the consulting world: Fixed-Price (FP) and Time-and-Materials (T&M). With FP, project profitability is directly impacted by the number of hours worked. Contractors are incentivized to work as few hours as possible to achieve the outcomes stated in the SOW. T&M is more flexible, as there are usually no defined outcomes. Contracting orgs love FP with well defined scopes. Clients usually like a mix depending on the outcome (staff augmentation vs wanting a particular deliverable, for example).