Level up to 2: Explicit InnerSource Principles #374
Conversation
…ples' fulfills all criteria for level 2 (Structured).
spier
added
2-structured
spier
requested review from
cewilliams,
lenucksi and
NewMexicoKid
as code owners
spier
requested review from
MaineC and
gruetter
and removed request for
NewMexicoKid,
lenucksi and
cewilliams
|
Sorry @gruetter, looks like I mentioned the wrong GitHub user first. |
not sure I get your meaning As for the title: I'm not a fan TBPH. How about simply
|
|
That said, I'm ok with the original title so I'll approve. Thanks for pushing this forward, @spier ! |
…rceCommons/InnerSourcePatterns into level-up-innersource-principles
|
I like InnerSource principles too! |
Thanks for the input @claredillon. I am a bit wary that, as these are all InnerSource patterns, we might end up with too many things with "InnerSource" in the name. So far we only have 2 patterns like that in the book but a couple of more that are still in an initial state. What do you think about that? |
I actually appreciate why you suggested explicit InnerSource principles. It seems to me to be the essence of the pattern, to not rely on people's implicit understanding of IS principles but to be explicit with them. Explicit guiding principles would also be okay (from my perspective). Just my $0.02. |
|
Interesting point, @NewMexicoKid . The way I thought about our principles is that they start as explicit principles but become implicit over time, that's why I suggested to remove explicit. But again, I'm totally fine with the original title, even more so after your comment. |
|
@MaineC what's your take on the discussion over the title?
I am leaning towards "Document Guiding Principles", because
Also: |
I think if you do this, you should use Documented Guiding Principles so that people aren't confused by this pattern not being about Guiding principles for a Document (noun) vs. Document (verb) Guiding Principles. But I think that Explicit Guiding Principles would be fine too (and maybe a little more to the point--it's not the activity itself that is needed but the fact that the principles need to be explicitly stated). |
Fair point. Good idea to consider the grammar here too :)
In our org the exercise of documenting such principles (or anything else) is actually the essential part. Through the documentation and review activities we bring out any disagreement or unspoken assumptions. By discussing them and resolving them we arrive at principles that we can agree on. So if I would name the pattern after the goal, I would call it: And if I would name it after the activity that gets us there But wow, naming things is really hard. Also with Patterns 🤣 |
|
Good points, Sebastian--and great suggestions. I like the second one based
on your comment about documentation being essential (agreement starts first
with documentation). So: Document your Guiding Principles.
Thanks!
…On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:56 AM Sebastian Spier ***@***.***> wrote:
I think if you do this, you should use Documented Guiding Principles so
that people aren't confused by this pattern not being about Guiding
principles for a Document (noun) vs. Document (verb) Guiding Principles.
Fair point. Good idea to consider the grammar here too :)
But I think that Explicit Guiding Principles would be fine too (and maybe
a little more to the point--it's not the activity itself that is needed but
the fact that the principles need to be explicitly stated).
In our org the exercise of documenting such principles (or anything else)
is actually the essential part. Through the documentation and review
activities we bring out any disagreement or unspoken assumptions. By
discussing them and resolving them we arrive at principles that we can
agree on.
So if I would name the pattern after the goal, I would call it:
"Agree on Guiding Principles"
And if I would name it after the activity that gets us there
"Document your Guiding Principles" - by adding the "your" I might solve
the noun/verb confusion?
But wow, naming things is really hard. Also with Patterns 🤣
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#374 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARUJ4DO5SJ35QEA2S7NEY3URA3X3ANCNFSM5JZUXL7A>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
--
Tim Yao - ***@***.*** ***@***.***>
***@***.***>
aka NewMexicoKid at National Novel Writing Month, http://nanowrimo.org
<http://www.nanowrimo.org>
co-Municipal Liaison for the Illinois::Naperville region
NaperWriMo - http://naperwrimo.org
|
…rceCommons/InnerSourcePatterns into level-up-innersource-principles
Thank you again @MaineC for sharing this pattern with us.
With @gruetter's latest changes in #373, this pattern is ready for prime time (i.e. leveling it up to 'Structured' and publishing it in our book).
I made all the required changes in this PR already to do so.
Quick link to the updated pattern: here
However one last question for you:
Are you happy with the title "Explicit InnerSource Principles"?
Why am I asking?
We got another pattern in the making also using the term
explicit(Explicit Shared Ownership), so I am wondering if the current title of this pattern is easy to remember and somewhat uniquely recognizeable?Further once we publish the pattern it gets a URL at patterns.innersourcecommons.org i.e.
https://patterns.innersourcecommons.org/p/explicit-innersource-principlesin this case. And in order to not create any dead links we try not to change the filename and pattern name after it has been publishedYour answers to this can totally be "I am happy with the title as is, let's keep it." :)
Just wanted to bring this up for your consideration.