docs: define multi-organisational maintainer minimums and vendor neutrality cap#4
docs: define multi-organisational maintainer minimums and vendor neutrality cap#4dsterz wants to merge 1 commit intoneonephos:mainfrom
Conversation
…rality cap To ensure the long-term sustainability of our projects, we need to mitigate the "bus factor"—the risk that a project might stall if a single leader or company withdraws. I propose we restore the requirement for cross-organisational collaboration, which aligns nicely with open-source best practices. This requirement is crucial for fulfilling NeoNephos goal of prioritizing "independence from proprietary components and from single vendor owned open source projects". Mandating a diverse, multi-organisational maintainer base guarantees that "contribution and proven technical leadership matter more than company affiliation," helping us prevent vendor lock-in and uphold European digital sovereignty. Signed-off-by: David Sterz <opensource@davidsterz.de>
jakobmoellerdev
left a comment
jakobmoellerdev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
love this suggestion!
| ##### Acceptance Criteria | ||
|
|
||
| The TAC has not yet defined requirements for the Growth Stage. | ||
| * The project must demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions, driven by a minimum of three active maintainers from at least two different organisations |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
substantial is relative and should be put into absolute terms
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given that the policy already defines an annual project review, this topic should be consolidated into that section. As part of that review, the TAC may move projects with little or no activity, regardless of stage, to the Emeritus stage.
For Growth Stage acceptance, the primary additional criterion should be a minimum number of active maintainers and organizations. The policy should also clarify what happens if the number of maintainers or participating organisations falls below the threshold, including how "active" is defined, the measurement period, and the timespan over which compliance is assessed.
For reference, some foundations require quarterly reports with basic activity statistics; adopting a similar cadence would provide clear, regular checkpoints.
4 participants
To ensure the long-term sustainability of our projects, we need to mitigate the "bus factor"—the risk that a project might stall if a single leader or company withdraws.
I propose we restore the requirement for cross-organisational collaboration, which aligns nicely with open-source best practices.
This requirement is crucial for fulfilling NeoNephos goal of prioritizing "independence from proprietary components and from single vendor owned open source projects".
Mandating a diverse, multi-organisational maintainer base guarantees that "contribution and proven technical leadership matter more than company affiliation," helping us prevent vendor lock-in and uphold European digital sovereignty.