This is the prose version of a talk I gave today at OpenStack Day, France. The slides are available here.
Today, I want to speak about a somewhat subtle, meta-topic. I hope to share some insight on the question of how a company should think about its investment in any given open-source project. The reason I think the subject is important right now is that, as OpenStack follows its inevitable path through the “hype curve”, we are seeing some major players in the OpenStack ecosystem have recently re-shaped their investment in the project. I think there is plenty of opportunity for companies to take a much more realistic view on this subject, and my hope is that this will lead to a much more sustainable level of investment in the project.
My views on this question are so heavily influenced by an early personal experience, that I’m tempted to talk at length about my own story. But time is short. Very quickly, though, as I was finishing university, I realized I wanted to focus my career on open-source, and I was faced with the obvious question of who was going to pay me to work on open-source? What value would be open-source work bring to my employer? I spent a lot of time thinking about this, even after I found myself employed to work full time on open-source.
An interesting thing happened. Because I had spent a good deal of time thinking about the value of my own open-source work, I was well-placed to help my employer think about how, where, and why to invest in open-source projects. It quickly became apparent to me then - and is still apparent to me now - that this fundamental question is fraught with difficulty, and most people struggle greatly to answer it.
Investment vs Business Needs
Over the years, I’ve boiled my answer to this simple-sounding question to something equally simple - your investment in a project should be directly related to what the business needs from the project. I think it’s important to frame it this way, because if the business doesn’t have a good have a good understanding in the value of an investment, the business is going to be quick to discontinue that investment when it is looking at how to make the best use of its resources.
What do I mean about an investment that isn’t directly related to the needs of the business? Let me dig into that a little bit with some anti-patterns.
Focus on Features
First, features. Or, as Thierry Carrez puts it, “tactical contributions”. Companies often look at the “what do we need from this project” question through the lens of feature analysis - what are my requirements? What is missing?
The good thing about contributing features is that it is directly related to business needs. The thing about your primary focus being on new feature development is it misses the bigger picture. A community of developers that is focused only on their own new features is not going to get anywhere. Who is thinking about the long-term future of the project? Who is looking at feedback from users? Who is merging the code for these new features?
All of these types of activities are the basic necessities of any software project. They are the basis through which new features get added. You must invest in ensuring that this is happening in this project whose future you care about.
This anti-pattern is about our choice of language, and how it affects our thinking. People often talk about “donating” code to a project. Calling it a donation suggests you have a feeling that the return on your investment is quite intangible. How long will you continue with these “donations”?
Related, it’s often quite clear that a major motivation for companies investing in open-source is the recognition they receive in doing so. Certainly, in OpenStack, with Stackalytics we have spawned an impressively pointless competition between companies for ranking in contributor statistics. If you give your employees the goal of achieving a particular ranking in the contributor statistics, you may achieve this, but what does that really achieve?
The type of business value that it delivers is essentially short-term marketing value. We don’t want investment in open-source projects to be made out marketing budgets, since that’s possibly the least reliable source of funding!
Not so long ago, when companies were falling over themselves to demonstrate their commitment to OpenStack, we saw an interesting phenomenon - the “100% dedicated upstream resource”. These were individuals and teams at various companies who were employed to contribute to the project but - as far as I can tell - were self-directed and deliberately kept isolated from any “downstream” work.
This is an incredibly alluring opportunity for those involved! The company is saying that the project is critically important to the business and whatever you or your team does to help the project be successful, that’s valuable to the company! Unfortunately, we can see how these things go in cycles and, at some point, the company will take a harder look at what this person or team is doing. When that happens, the likelihood is that the company has very little visibility into - or understanding of - the work being done and, worse, the person or team has no experience articulating how the value of the work is meaningful to the business!
There are some exceptions to this, even within Red Hat. But as a systematic way of investing in a project … it’s unlikely to be sustainable.
Finally, the culmination of a number of these anti-patterns - the idea that companies should "donate" to a non-profit organization like the OpenStack Foundation, have that organization use the donations to employ staff who are "100% dedicated upstream resources", and the value to companies ...? The recognition it receives for being such generous benefactors?
Having some technical staff employed by the non-profit is fine. Some of my favorite people work for the OpenStack Foundation! My preference would be for Foundation staff to be in facilitation roles. But certainly, you would do well to avoid this pattern for the majority of the contributors on a project.
One example of this is the Linux Foundation's Core Infrastructure Initiative. In the wake of the OpenSSL Heartbleed vulnerability, the Linux Foundation brought together funding from a number of companies to invest resources for key projects like OpenSSL. It's fascinating because here is a project like OpenSSL that many, many businesses depended on, but few invested in. What the Linux Foundation has done is positive, but I can't help feel we have failed as a community if this is the only way to sustain these projects. You'll notice that Red Hat hasn't joined this initiative, despite us being supportive of it - we have always invested in these projects directly, and think that is actually a healthier model for the future.
Ok, so that's a bunch of anti-patterns ... what you generally shouldn't do. What should you do? Well, you need to think strategically. You are choosing to have your business depend on something you don't control, but you should not allow yourself to feel powerless about how successful that choice will be.
Think about the future, the long-term. Given the business choice you are making, for how long will your business success depend on the success of the project? Indefinitely? What are you doing to ensure that success?
One way to think about that would be a worst-case scenario. The unimaginable happens, and the rest of our community disappears. You are left almost completely alone maintaining the project. What you focus on? Obviously, you wouldn't choose to depend on a project where there is a possibility of that happening, but the thought exercise does help you think about your priorities.
If you are determined to ensure the success of the project, you'll have your own view of what that success looks like. Are you happy to hope the community will find a direction that fits your needs, without any input from community leaders that understand the needs of your business?
At Red Hat, we talk about wearing "two hats". Given a particular problem, a particular question of direction, you should have the ability to understand what's good for the project overall and what's good for Red Hat. And crucially, you should have a way to reconcile those two views. This is not a zero sum game. Almost always, you can find a solution that is good for both the project and Red Hat. Why would Red Hat want a solution that is harmful to the project?
In order to be successful with any technology, you need to have access to expertise that understands the technology. There is no better expertise than the authors or maintainers of the project. These are the people who understand not just how the technology works now, but how it evolved there, and how things are likely to change in the future. They understand the pitfalls, the know the cool new tricks.
You can have access to that expertise by having those experts join your team. They stop being experts pretty quickly if they stop having time to work on the project, so their upstream responsibilities should continue to be a significant proportion of their time. But you'd be amazed at how their presence on the team can help the whole team be successful.
Red Hat's Model
As somewhat of an aside, since this presentation is not a sales pitch, think about Red Hat's business model, and our proposition to our customers. Certainly part of the model is that, through our product subscriptions, the customer is investing in the projects involved and, by proxy, is safeguarding the future of the project, gaining a level of influence in the project, and has access to expertise relating to the project.
A Measurable Goal
Recently, on Red Hat's OpenStack team, and thanks to the influence of Alexis Monville, we've been using the "Objectives and Key Results" framework for using well-defined, measurable goals to guide our teams. We started brainstorming on these OKRs almost a year ago, and from those early discussions, I wondered “how do we frame an measurable goal around our investment in upstream?”. What indicator could we use to know whether we were on the right track, and to ensure we’d stay on the right track?
Our first thoughts on this was to look at data like our position in the contributor statistics, or the number of core contributors, PTLs, or TC members on our team. None of this sat well with us, though, because we have seen that these type of goals don’t drive the right behaviors. When we started drafting a vision statement for each goal, I wrote:
“Teams of engineers with the required motivation, an understanding of Red Hat's vision, and empowered with the necessary time, encouragement, and recognition, working upstream to drive and influence many diverse parts of OpenStack.”
And there it sat for a while, us all lacking ideas on how to measure this. Quite recently, Russell Bryant and Doug Hellmann hit on a promising solution. Survey the team with a small set of questions and use that sentiment of our measure of success with this goal.
The questions that Russell and Doug developed are:
- Does your team have effective input into the features accepted and design decisions made upstream?
- Does your team have effective input into bug fixes and backports made upstream?
- Does your team have effective input into discussions related to processes, schedules, requirements, infrastructure management, and other decisions made by the upstream OpenStack community in general?
- What level of investment does your team make in upstream work?
The allowed answers are “not enough”, “just right”, “too much”, and “don’t know”. We also had a free-form comments section which is helping us gain insight into the results.
Notice one important aspect of this - we are asking individuals about the effectiveness of the investment their team is making upstream. That reflects the vision above.
We only recently started running this survey, and we will do one every release cycle. So far, we’ve had over 70 responses, so that’s a pretty good start.
The really interesting judgment call we need to make is what percentage of “just right” answers do we want to aim for? It would seem misguided to aim for 100% - do we really think that it’s important that every individual feels we’re striking the right balance? We’ve arbitrarily chosen 80% as our target, which means we feel pretty good about where we’re at, but there’s still opportunities for improvement.
One thing I’m loving about my job these days is the direct exposure I have to Red Hat customers who are choosing to invest in OpenStack. Deciding to build a significant cloud for production use is a huge decision, and no-one takes it lightly. It’s exciting, and companies doing this can look forward to a true transformation in how they think about IT resources. The truly daunting part is the sense of responsibility that comes with it.
These are long-term choices being made, and they’re being made because people believe in the future of this project. Red Hat takes the responsibility seriously by making choices that we hope will ensure the project has a long, sustainable future.