Skip to content
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
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
80 changes: 80 additions & 0 deletions patterns/1-initial/innersource-contractor-model-terms.md
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.

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).

- 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
Loading