Skip to content

Conversation

gruetter
Copy link
Contributor

This is the 30 Day Warranty Pattern put in practice by the PayPal folks.

@gruetter gruetter added 0 - Incomplete 3-validated Patterns proven in multiple cases with advanced requirements (Please see our contribution handbook) labels Apr 19, 2017
@gruetter gruetter requested review from cewilliams and psudars April 19, 2017 14:53
Copy link
Member

@cewilliams cewilliams left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Generally good, thanks for getting this in! Grammar changes are requested. Context and Forces changes are open for discussion.


# Context

Teams depends on another team accepting their contributions so that a component
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this applies whether the contributing team provides the code or not. The end result that the contributing team is trying to achieve is that the feature is available to them to use, whether they, the receiving team, or another party write the code that provides the feature.

submitted half finished contributions and subsequently filed requests for
fixes that make it ready for use in production.
- If code is contributed from outside the team, the team has the natural
suspicition that the other team does not know how to write code that would
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suspicition -> suspicion

codebase.
- There is the fear of the contributors not being available for support with
fixing bugs after the time on contribution.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Additional forces may be:

  • Teams fear contributed code will lead to high(er) maintenance costs but do not know how to control for that
  • Receiving teams may fear that teaching others how to contribute code will expose technical debt in their system and that visibility may be damaging
  • Receiving teams may not believe that they will get acceptable code no matter how much mentoring they provide
  • Either team may not feel confident in measuring risks or certifying that they are mitigated in a contribution

- the receiving team is willing to accept contributions and able to share the
workload of initial adaptations/fixes
- increased transparency and fairness
- keeps escalations from becoming to heavyweight
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

to -> too


# Acknowledgement

- Dirk
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Dirk -> Dirk-Willem van Gulik

@gruetter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the suggestions and changes, @cewilliams ! @psudars : will you have time to review, as well or would you like me to ask around if s.o. else would like to jump in your stead?

Updated this pattern to match revised pattern in the PLoP 2017 paper on InnerSource Patterns, meeting reviewer comments.
Copy link
Collaborator

@NewMexicoKid NewMexicoKid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This has been reviewed by the PLoP 2017 author team and assigned shepherd from PLoP.

bug fixes to the receiving team.

a) clear contribution guidelines spelling out the expectations of the receiving
team and
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and ...?

@NewMexicoKid NewMexicoKid merged commit 8bfdb9a into master Aug 29, 2017
@rrrutledge rrrutledge deleted the pattern/30-day-warranty branch March 18, 2020 13:53
@lenucksi lenucksi added the 📖 Type - Content Work Working on contents is the main focus of this issue / PR label Sep 28, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

3-validated Patterns proven in multiple cases with advanced requirements (Please see our contribution handbook) 📖 Type - Content Work Working on contents is the main focus of this issue / PR

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants