summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDaniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>2024-04-11 08:27:49 +0000
committerDaniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>2024-04-11 08:27:49 +0000
commitace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6 (patch)
treeb2d64bc10158fdd5497876388cd68142ca374ed3 /Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
parentInitial commit. (diff)
downloadlinux-ace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6.tar.xz
linux-ace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6.zip
Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15
Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst109
1 files changed, 109 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..b87ab34de2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+========================================
+Linux Kernel Contribution Maturity Model
+========================================
+
+
+Background
+==========
+
+As a part of the 2021 Linux Kernel Maintainers’ Summit, there was a
+`discussion <https://lwn.net/Articles/870581/>`_ about the challenges in
+recruiting kernel maintainers as well as maintainer succession. Some of
+the conclusions from that discussion included that companies which are a
+part of the Linux Kernel community need to allow engineers to be
+maintainers as part of their job, so they can grow into becoming
+respected leaders and eventually, kernel maintainers. To support a
+strong talent pipeline, developers should be allowed and encouraged to
+take on upstream contributions such as reviewing other people’s patches,
+refactoring kernel infrastructure, and writing documentation.
+
+To that end, the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board (TAB)
+proposes this Linux Kernel Contribution Maturity Model. These common
+expectations for upstream community engagement aim to increase the
+influence of individual developers, increase the collaboration of
+organizations, and improve the overall health of the Linux Kernel
+ecosystem.
+
+The TAB urges organizations to continuously evaluate their Open Source
+maturity model and commit to improvements to align with this model. To
+be effective, this evaluation should incorporate feedback from across
+the organization, including management and developers at all seniority
+levels. In the spirit of Open Source, we encourage organizations to
+publish their evaluations and plans to improve their engagement with the
+upstream community.
+
+Level 0
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are not allowed to contribute patches to the Linux
+ kernel.
+
+
+Level 1
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are allowed to contribute patches to the Linux
+ kernel, either as part of their job responsibilities or on their own
+ time.
+
+Level 2
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are expected to contribute to the Linux Kernel as
+ part of their job responsibilities.
+* Software Engineers will be supported to attend Linux-related
+ conferences as a part of their job.
+* A Software Engineer’s upstream code contributions will be considered
+ in promotion and performance reviews.
+
+Level 3
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are expected to review patches (including patches
+ authored by engineers from other companies) 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.
+* A Software Engineer’s community contributions will be considered in
+ promotion and performance reviews.
+* Organizations will regularly report metrics of their open source
+ contributions and track these metrics over time. These metrics may be
+ published only internally within the organization, or at the
+ organization’s discretion, some or all may be published externally.
+ Metrics that are strongly suggested include:
+
+ * The number of upstream kernel contributions by team or organization
+ (e.g., all people reporting up to a manager, director, or VP).
+ * The percentage of kernel developers who have made upstream
+ contributions relative to the total kernel developers in the
+ organization.
+ * The time interval between kernels used in the organization’s servers
+ and/or products, and the publication date of the upstream kernel
+ upon which the internal kernel is based.
+ * The number of out-of-tree commits present in internal kernels.
+
+Level 4
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are encouraged to spend a portion of their work
+ time focused on Upstream Work, which is defined as reviewing patches,
+ serving on program committees, improving core project infrastructure
+ such as writing or maintaining tests, upstream tech debt reduction,
+ writing documentation, etc.
+* Software Engineers are supported in helping to organize Linux-related
+ conferences.
+* Organizations will consider community member feedback in official
+ performance reviews.
+
+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.