blog: upstream-led contributions and team practices #412
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| title: "The difference between upstream-led vs. stakeholder-led open source contributions" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to spend some time brainstorming different options here. I'm not a big fan of this one, although I agree that the earlier 'strategic vs tacitical' is not appropriate either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For what it's worth I'm not attached to this language at all. Happy to use something else. The reason I moved away from the previous language was (so you know my rationale in case it's helpful for next iteration):
- it wasn't precise enough (and I don't want people to fill in too many missing gaps)
- All of our work needs to be strategic at the end of the day, and in our case getting our product work accomplished through open source development is definitely a strategic choice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
100% i never liked the previous ones as well for both the reasons you listed, plus the military / violent feel of 'tactical' in my mouth
|
I've renamed these to "Directed Contributions" and "Foundational Contributions", rather than "Stakeholder-led" and "Upstream-led". I'll publish this later today unless there's objection from @yuvipanda ! |
This adapts language that @yuvipanda originally wrote in order to describe our team thinking around making contributions to upstream communities. It describes two kinds of contributions:
It describes what each kind of contribution is and what it looks like, as well as how it relates to 2i2c.
It ends each section with a brief description of the team practices that we want to adopt towards each one. These should be high-level ideas that we can follow-up with more specific policy or system design.