Governance in an open source community always varies from project to project. Typically it's along the lines of a meritocracy, where community members' participations are weighted by the quality of each respective member's contributions, but not always.
But one thing a community should not be is completely governed by the management hierarchy of any companies that sponsor that project.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that this kind of statement might be a bit hypocritical coming from someone who works at Red Hat, a company that is built on open source technologies and a very strong participant in free and open source projects around the world. Surely we have managers and employees here have hierarchical positions that match the maintainer and contributor structure of the projects in which we are heavily involved.
Well, sometimes that is the case. But a lot of times, it is not. Many of the projects with which we work have other companies' employees and independent contributors and they have their own responsibilities within the projects that don't mirror their "positions" in the corporate world.
And that's really the way it should be.
The reason I bring this up is that every once in a while, within and without Red Hat, I will hear a conversation that goes something like this:
"I think we should do this [for Project X]."
"Really? How would we do that?"
"Well, we could [followed by excellent lengthy technical explanation]."
"That's amazing! You should do that!"
And then, the reply that kills me:
"Well, it's not really my place."
Cue head exploding.
Now, I realize that some of this might be the ol' "What? Me work?" syndrome, but I have heard enough versions of this conversation to know that this is more than just a bunch of unmotivated people. They genuinely don't think that, because of their position in whatever organization they work, that they have the "authority" needed to make large contributions to the project.
This is a tricky problem to solve, because adjusting from corporate hierarchical thinking to project meritocratal isn't easy. You want project hierarchy to be freeflowing based on merit, but you don't want mass anarchy in the workplace, either.
The most important responsibility lies with managers, really, to empower their employees to understand that taking initiative and even the lead on aspects of an open source project is not prohibited, and in fact should be encouraged. Allowing developers and other project participants play to their strengths not only strengthens the project and its community, but will ultimately make better employees in the process.
About the author
Brian Proffitt is Senior Manager, Community Outreach within Red Hat's Open Source Program Office, focusing on enablement, community metrics and foundation and trade organization relationships. Brian's experience with community management includes knowledge of community onboarding, community health and business alignment. Prior to joining Red Hat in 2013, he was a technology journalist with a focus on Linux and open source, and the author of 22 consumer technology books.
More like this
14 software architecture design patterns to know
Getting started with socat, a multipurpose relay tool for Linux
Technically Speaking | Platform engineering for AI agents
Technically Speaking | Driving healthcare discoveries with AI
Browse by channel
Automation
The latest on IT automation for tech, teams, and environments
Artificial intelligence
Updates on the platforms that free customers to run AI workloads anywhere
Open hybrid cloud
Explore how we build a more flexible future with hybrid cloud
Security
The latest on how we reduce risks across environments and technologies
Edge computing
Updates on the platforms that simplify operations at the edge
Infrastructure
The latest on the world’s leading enterprise Linux platform
Applications
Inside our solutions to the toughest application challenges
Virtualization
The future of enterprise virtualization for your workloads on-premise or across clouds