|
1 | | -**Title:** Time Constraints Hamper Inner Source Progress |
| 1 | +## Title |
2 | 2 |
|
3 | | -**Statement of Problem:** Project management believes that timeline pressures and feature content commitments do not allow Developers to spend the time needed to develop shareable, reusable code and provide support. As a result, there is currently no code available for reuse, and Developers are writing redundant code. |
| 3 | +Time Constraints Hamper Inner Source Progress |
4 | 4 |
|
5 | | -**Context:** Customer deadlines and delivery commitments for feature content do not change. |
| 5 | +## Patlet |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +TBD |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Problem |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +Project management believes that timeline pressures and feature content commitments do not allow Developers to spend the time needed to develop shareable, reusable code and provide support. As a result, there is currently no code available for reuse, and Developers are writing redundant code. |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +## Context |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +Customer deadlines and delivery commitments for feature content do not change. |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +## Forces |
6 | 18 |
|
7 | | -**Forces:** |
8 | 19 | - Aggressive roadmaps for delivery |
9 | | -- Project management concern that engagement will lead to missed deadlines |
| 20 | +- Project management concern that engagement will lead to missed deadlines |
10 | 21 | - Project management concern that Code contribution and/or mentoring may lead to dilution of subject matter expert time spent on their own projects (other teams may require their time). |
11 | 22 | + Elimination of rewriting common code saves time (write once, use many times) |
12 | 23 | + Crowd-based testing and debugging saves time (and improves quality) |
13 | 24 | + The collaboration and synergy of inner sourcing can generate new, innovative features . |
14 | 25 | + Test Driven Development could mitigate some of the above forces |
15 | 26 |
|
16 | | -**Resolution:** |
| 27 | +## Solutions |
| 28 | + |
17 | 29 | - Known pattern: temporary fork by product team, merging changes back later to component team |
18 | 30 | - Known anti-pattern: surreptitious temporary fork, no communication |
19 | 31 | - New Pattern: Pre-pull request (prior to release), to ensure component team has buy-in, to avoid breakage for temporary fork |
20 | 32 | - Allocate time into Development sprint/release schedules to allow for inner sourcing |
21 | 33 | - Provide education to product owners and Development leads regarding time saving benefits of Inner Source |
22 | 34 |
|
23 | | -**Resulting Context:** Time is allotted in the schedule for inner sourcing. Less duplicative development due to availability of reusable code. (No negative impact on customer deadlines or content delivery commitments.) |
24 | | - |
25 | | -**Authors:** |
| 35 | +## Resulting Context |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +Time is allotted in the schedule for inner sourcing. Less duplicative development due to availability of reusable code. (No negative impact on customer deadlines or content delivery commitments.) |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +## Known Instances |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +TBD |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +## Authors |
| 44 | + |
26 | 45 | - Tim Yao |
27 | 46 | - Nick Stahl |
28 | 47 | - Guy Martin |
29 | 48 | - Michael Dorner |
30 | 49 | - Erin Bank |
31 | 50 |
|
32 | | -**Status:** Draft Pattern |
| 51 | +## Status |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +Initial |
0 commit comments