Consider rewording the ESP to make more partners eligible

[voxpelli]

I asked in Slack if anyone remembered why the Ecosystem Sustainability Program became limited to partners that focuses on EOL versions:

cross-project-council/project-resources/ESP/ECOSYSTEM_SUSTAINABILITY_PROGRAM.md

Line 24 in 862583f

- A partner must be providing support to end-of-life (EOL) versions of the project

The one reply I got, from @mhdawson, was:

I don't think it was a specific decision to exclude non-EOL versions, more that is what was being pitched

I personally think that the current limitation to partners who focuses on EOL versions excludes companies that could otherwise be a great fit for the program, and might make some not even reach out to discuss the program.

Eg. Tidelift is a good example – its very much focused on Ecosystem Sustainability and its in use by quite a few OpenJSF projects, but it does not qualify for the Ecosystem Sustainability Program currently, as Tidelift does not focus on EOL-versions specifically but rather on helping ensure maintainers can keep all versions secure.

All in all:

If there's no active intent in excluding non-EOL focused companies, then the ESP-program should be rewritten so that more companies than essentially just HeroDevs can qualify (I'm not aware of any other company that has opted for a business model focused specifically on EOL-version)

[ljharb]

It's worth noting that the ESP was formed because of HeroDevs' interest - are there any companies (including Tidelift) that have an expressed interest in some kind of partnership?

[voxpelli]

are there any companies (including Tidelift) that have an expressed interest in some kind of partnership

This is a catch 22 – if worded like the current program then I think few other partners would find themselves a match for it and thus naturally not express interest, at least not interest in that program specifically

I think a better question is:

What would keep suitable companies (like Tidelift) from being interested in the program?

[tobie]

This is a catch 22 – if worded like the current program then I think few other partners would find themselves a match for it and thus naturally not express interest, at least not interest in that program specifically

I don't think that's a real concern. If anything, ESP shows that the foundation is interested in pursuing novel approaches to open source sustainability and puts it on the radar of organizations who are looking for partners in that space. Folks running business are business-savvy enough to know that the terms of partnerships are negotiable and that if there's a will to collaborate, there's a good chance something can be worked out. Additionally, this is a small world where folks know each other. If the goal is to increase partnerships, it'll be a lot more effective to reach out to potential partners and have conversations than to open-up hypothetical terms that we believe could be attractive to some organizations.

From a biz-dev perspective, I think the right decision at this point is to focus on making the existing partnerships successful first, and possibly expending to different types of partnership in the future if the existing ones turn out to be successful.

Additionally, reviewing this policy would need to get both CPC and Board approval and folks would rightfully ask for the reason to burn cycles on modifying the existing policy without a concrete partner to base the changes on. I don't think we should pursue this further until it enables a new partnership and the timing is write from the foundation's perspective to do so.

[ljharb]

That's like saying the lack of an ESP entirely was a catch 22. How can we reword a program when we have no idea who, if anyone, is interested?

We of course should be willing to make whatever changes are needed to bring on more beneficial partners, but such partners need to affirmatively indicate interest so we can have a conversation.

[voxpelli]

Let me rephrase and simplify as it seems like we missed the main question:

Were there any reasons at all to limit the program to EOL / outdated software other than the fact that it was what @ljharb / HeroDevs pitched?

[tobie]

We just didn’t have that conversation because no one showed up with a concrete and credible partnership proposal around something like this. I believe the business model would be different, as would the tradeoffs. Again, there’s no point trying to figure out what something like this would look like in a vacuum.

[tobie]

That said, we could add somewhere in this policy a sentence suggesting that the foundation is always open to novel solutions to improve open source sustainability and that folks who have concrete partnership proposals are welcomed to reach out.

[voxpelli]

because no one showed up with a concrete and credible partnership proposal around something like this

Some discussion and consideration must surely have been had when this was made into the Ecosystem Sustainability Program rather than just a OpenJSF / HeroDevs partnership?

Going beyond simply announcing a partnership with HeroDevs to launch a program implies – at least to me – that there’s been an idea about who the other possible actors in the program could be? And in doing so a discussion around the scope of the program and the limits / scope of it?

Else, why was it launched as a program rather than a simple OpenJSF / HeroDevs partnership?

[ljharb]

My understanding is that nonprofits are not permitted to have exclusive partnerships, so it was thus launched as a program to ensure the possibility exists of additional partners - although none were identified.

[voxpelli]

My understanding is that nonprofits are not permitted to have exclusive partnerships, so it was thus launched as a program to ensure the possibility exists of additional partners - although none were identified.

If anything this just makes it more problematic.

I'm not claiming that this is the case: But any doubts whether the ESP was worded like it is by HeroDevs to circumvent that ban on exclusive partnerships – such doubts would reflect poorly on the OpenJSF.

Your very comment @ljharb shows that this issue was a concern known to HeroDevs and no comment here from anyone else involved from the OpenJSF side serves to show that any care was taken to ensure that the program didn't become an exclusive partnership in everything but name.

This is a bit disappointing – especially as all involved parties was well aware about the conflict of interest that's been present from the start with @ljharb's involvement in both HeroDevs and OpenJSF. With that in mind I would have expected extra much care to have been taken to ensure that there can be no doubt on whether this is a program open for all or one tailored for HeroDevs and no-one else.

I'm not making accusations here, I'm simply highlighting that there can exist doubts and that mere possibility reflects badly on OpenJSF.

I think the OpenJSF should consider doubling down and ensuring that no doubts can be had here.

---

With that said I will leave this issue and let others decide if it should be closed or worked upon further – its clear that its not somewhere where I can make productive contributions.

[ljharb]

There can always exist doubts - the program is in no way an exclusive partnership, and any efforts were to ensure that it didn't falsely imply that.

Again, if any company wants to partner with OpenJS, they should step forward, and if they don't fit the current terms of the ESP, we should adjust them as needed - but until one shows up, this entire issue reads like FUD to me, and indeed looks like an accusation.

[voxpelli]

any efforts were to ensure that it didn't falsely imply that

These are the very efforts that I asked for initially – can you elaborate?

[ljharb]

We had extensive discussions in the board and the CPC. I wasn't part of the discussions between HeroDevs and OpenJS specifically to avoid (or minimize) conflicts of interest, so I'm not sure where that specific phrasing regarding EOL versions came from, but my assumption is that since no other companies have expressed interest, it just didn't occur to anyone to go beyond that.

Do you know of any companies that want to parter with OpenJS and aren't eligible based on the current ESP text? If so, let's expand them to include those companies. But, in the absence of one, I'm confused why it matters.

[voxpelli]

I'm confused why it matters

It matters because of perception and it matters when doing outreach and trying to convince possible partners to join.

But anyhow, I find the handling of this disappointing and unwelcome so I will unsubscribe from this issue now. Feel free to close if you believe it has no merit.

[ljharb]

To be frank, it sounds like you're upset that this new and innovative program that nobody's ever attempted before isn't accounting for possibilities nobody's suggested or thought of.

If there's a company you're doing outreach to on your own without discussing it with anyone else in OpenJS, then I'd invite you to seek counsel first. If there's something OpenJS, or the ESP, can do to make it more amenable/welcome to new partners, then strategically, we should be apprised of that possibility before attempting any outreach, so we can set everyone up for success.