Create assisted_compliance.md

[NewMexicoKid]

This is: Helping repo owners be compliant by writing their CONTRIBUTING.md for them as a pull request.
It was created/documented at the 2017-06-08 InnerSource Patterns meeting.

[gruetter]

Quite a bit of work to be done ...

[gruetter]

The way the context is written make me think that the pattern only applies in a very narrow case. I feel we need to abstract a few things to make it more applicable.

[NewMexicoKid]

Can you suggest some ways to abstract it? Is the key restrictive context the mandatory nature of the CONTRIBUTING.md file?

[gruetter]

Looks like context to me

[gruetter]

I propose to make this less conditional.

[gregswindle]

@gruetter, I agree: IMHO, beneficiaries of an automated PR with a CONTRIBUTING.md doc should be viewed as an act of service, not enforcement.

Maybe pitch this as a benefit, e.g.,

Let us help you market your software and convert users into contributors.

As you can see on the InnerSourcePattern repository's "Community profile" page, GitHub considers CONTRIBUTING one of several recommended community standards:

• README.md,
• CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md,
• CONTRIBUTING.md,
• LICENSE,
• ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md, and PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

Once people realize value of these documents--e.g., "A good README.md file will help people discover your projects from Intranet search," teams start to realize that CONTRIBUTING docs are a benefit instead of a chore.

On the other hand, some people just don't want to participate for one reason or another.

🔌 In anticipation of an formally recognized InnerSource Program at my company, I created generator-community, which generates those recommended community standards templates. Once generator-community reaches MVP, I'll InnerSource a micro-service that detects repos with docs, and then automatically submit a PR with the benefits of those docs explained.

[NewMexicoKid]

While it is ideal to persuade rather than to enforce, the fact that this pattern was written shows that persuasion may not be sufficient. I agree that getting people to understand the benefits should be something tried first (and this should be part of the pattern).

[gregswindle]

Thanks for the clarification, @NewMexicoKid.

[spier]

@gregswindle I know that this conversation here is a loooong while back. I just wanted to let you know what we have merged the pattern to the main line by now.

I am also curious to learn more about your project https://github.com/commonality/generator-community and what experiences you made with it. If you would like to chat about it, feel free to reply here or join the community in https://innersourcecommons-inviter.herokuapp.com/ :)

[spier]

Hi @NewMexicoKid and @gruetter (mentioning you as you both spent quite some time on this PR already).

We have reworked the maturity levels of the InnerSource patterns. The new levels make it more explicit what quality standards are expected for each level. With that we will also try to get PRs merged into master faster.

Status of this pattern:

We have currently categorized the Pattern in this PR as maturity level Level 2 - Structured.

For that level we have two requirements:

• is validated by at least one known instance
  • we suspect that this is already true, as this pattern was previously listed in the group Pattern Drafts (proven, not yet fully reviewed)
• complies with the patterns format
  • not sure about this, especially as the pattern format may have evolved since this PR was opened

How to get this PR merged?

• Could you confirm if the status assessment above sounds correct to you?
• If this pattern does not match the patterns format yet, could you adapt it accordingly?
• With that we should be able to merge this PR to master. That will also allow other contributors to level up this pattern further in subsequent PRs/contributions in the future.

I have no time to work on this, what to do?

As this PR is open for a while, it would be completely understandable if your priorities have shifted and you don't time to work on this anymore.

In that case please just let us know in a comment below. Then we can decide what to do with this PR on our own.

Thank you for your help! 👍

[lenucksi]

Thanks @spier for adding this update.
Since this pull request has seen a lot of interesting discussions and still has them open and unresolved I would be happy if the persons involved in these discussions could take a look to see if they are resolvable, e.g. by commit suggestions or resolve them if they deem them resolved such that we'd not loose insights by merging with open discussions.
I tink @NewMexicoKid @gregswindle @gruetter and @rrrutledge might be interested here.

[rrrutledge]

Added commit suggestion, @lenucksi.

[dellagustin]

Should we generalize this pattern to include other GitHub Community health files such as SUPPORT.md and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md?
The others do not seem so relevant for InnerSource, maybe SECURITY.md, but in corporate environment the processed for security are centrally defined.

[spier]

Interesting question @dellagustin.

Thoughts about the patterns:

The pattern Standard base documentation seems related. That pattern introduces README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md and describes why these files can support InnerSource in the first place, and less about who might create these files.

One approach to make these patterns work well together, while also implementing your idea could be:

• add further base documentation files (like SUPPORT.md and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md to the Standard base documentation pattern, explain the purpose of those files, and provide templates that can be used as a starting point
• the Assisted Compliance pattern discussed in this PR can then focus on "how to help other teams write their Standard base documentation" i.e. referring to the other pattern. That could prevent duplication between these two patterns.

Thoughts about the process:

Personally I would stay away from adding any further scope to this PR, as it already open since Jun 2017. Instead I would try to finish this PR here, and file new issues and PRs for any additional ideas related to this. That would also allow you to do this new work in parallel, without being blocked by this PR.

[spier]

@NewMexicoKid @gruetter I took a lot of liberties in resolving the inline-discussions that the two of you had around this pattern in 2017/18. Most of the time I just worked in whatever the last suggestion from either of the two of you was :)

I then marked the pattern as Level 1 (Initial) and moved it to the corresponding folder.
Why? It doesn't have Known Instances yet.

I left a couple of conversations open (see above) where I couldn't see a clear resolution path.
Note: As I moved the file, it is a bit harder to see now which line in the new file the conversations where about.

Quick path to merge

However given that this PR is in this state for so long already, I would like to suggest this way forward:

• Simply ignore the open conversations and get the pattern merged as is. That allows us to share it with the larger Patterns Community (as I doubt that everybody is reading PRs :))
• If anybody decides to work on this pattern further in the future e.g. because they have used something like this in their company, then they would naturally review and improve the pattern again anyways.
• In addition, this is an 1-Initial pattern, so it is fine if isn't reviewed yet in every last level of detail.

Timer

Please provide 👍 or 👎 on the suggested approach.

To get this over the finish line I will put also put a timer on this:
If there is no objection by next Friday (29th) then I will merge this PR as is.

[gruetter]

👍 I’m impressed with the way you handle this, Sebastian. Kudos … and thanks!

> Georg

On 22. January 2021 at 20:05:52, Sebastian Spier (notifications@github.com) wrote: @NewMexicoKid <https://github.com/NewMexicoKid> @gruetter <https://github.com/gruetter> I took a lot of liberties in resolving the inline-discussions that the two of you had around this pattern in 2017/18. Most of the time I just worked in whatever the last suggestion from either of the two of you was :) I then marked the pattern as *Level 1 (Initial)* and moved it to the corresponding folder. *Why?* It doesn't have Known Instances yet. I left a couple of conversations open (see above) where I couldn't see a clear resolution path. *Note:* As I moved the file, it is a bit harder to see now which line in the new file the conversations where about. Quick path to merge However given that this PR is in this state for so long already, I would like to suggest this way forward: - Simply ignore the open conversations and get the pattern merged as is. That allows us to share it with the larger Patterns Community (as I doubt that everybody is reading PRs :)) - If anybody decides to work on this pattern further in the future e.g. because they have used something like this in their company, then they would naturally review and improve the pattern again anyways. - In addition, this is an 1-Initial pattern, so it is fine if isn't reviewed yet in every last level of detail. Timer Please provide 👍 or 👎 on the suggested approach. To get this over the finish line I will put also put a timer on this: If there is no objection by next Friday (29th) then I will merge this PR as is. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#74 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAV5U6QDLBG4XISYSY54LK3S3HEA7ANCNFSM4DO56ARA> .

[spier]

Reaching timer. Merging.

I added a reference section, pointing to some interesting discussions in this PR.
Maybe the next person working on this will find this helpful.

One more draft pattern from the old days (2017) merged into the mainline. 🎉