The Employer-Dominated Podling (ASF Interactive Scenario)

Browser lacks capabilities required to play.

Upgrade or switch to another browser.

Loading…

/* Initialise ASF-aligned learning metrics */ <<set $transparency = 0>> /* Clear public communication and visible governance */ <<set $independence = 0>> /* PPMC-led decision-making free from vendor control */ <<set $collaboration = 0>> /* Welcoming participation across employers and individuals */ <<set $shortcuts = 0>> /* Private channels, deference to corporate hierarchy, hidden fixes */ <<set $escalation = 0>> /* Premature or unnecessary public escalation */ <<set $steps = 0>> You are a mentor working with an incubating Apache project. The podling is strong technically, but most active committers work for the same company. External contributors have stepped back, saying decisions feel made internally. A new contributor posts on dev@: "It seems like most big decisions are discussed elsewhere. Should I still propose ideas here?" What do you do? <<link "Defend the company's support">><<goto "A">><</link>> <<link "Encourage a transparent reply from the PPMC">><<goto "B">><</link>> <<link "Privately ask an active PPMC member to bring discussion on-list">><<goto "C">><</link>> <<link "Escalate to general@incubator">><<goto "D">><</link>> <<link "Stay silent to observe community response">><<goto "E">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Defensive tone reduces openness */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Reinforces employer centrality */ You post: "Company X has been crucial to this project's success. Their engineers and infrastructure make this all possible." Other contributors stay quiet. The new volunteer does not reply. <<link "Follow up to clarify inclusiveness">><<goto "A1Fix">><</link>> <<link "Let the matter drop">><<goto "A1Drop">><</link>> <<link "Suggest highlighting non-employee contributions in next status mail">><<goto "A1Credit">><</link>> <<link "Push back on the contributor's tone">><<goto "A1Scold">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Partial recovery via clarification */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Signals that outside input is welcome */ You follow up: "To be clear, everyone is welcome. Decisions happen on the list and proposals are encouraged." Some trust returns. <<link "Propose low-lift outreach to invite wider input">><<goto "A2Outreach">><</link>> <<link "Draft a short governance note clarifying that proposals begin on dev@">><<goto "A2GovNote">><</link>> <<link "Move on without concrete follow-ups">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Silence confirms imbalance */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Vendor dominance remains unaddressed */ Perception hardens. External contributors disengage. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible recognition of diverse effort */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Encourages broader participation */ <<set $independence += 0>> /* Messaging only; practices unchanged unless followed up */ You nudge the PPMC to acknowledge recent non-employee PRs and reviews in the next periodic mail. <<link "Pair it with an explicit 'no pre-meeting decisions' reminder">><<goto "A2Guardrail">><</link>> <<link "Leave it at credit only">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Escalates tension unnecessarily */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Chills open discussion */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Further centers the employer's role */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Alienates potential contributors */ You reply: "Accusations like that aren't helpful. Please respect the people doing the work." Several non-employee contributors go quiet. Some threads move further into private channels. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Public invitation improves visibility */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Encourages broader participation */ The PPMC posts a short call for ideas on dev@ and highlights a few issues ideal for newcomers. A couple of non-employee contributors volunteer. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Clarifies process in public */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Nudges toward community-led decisions */ A brief on-list note clarifies that proposals should start on dev@ with a short template people can copy. <<link "Invite a non-employee contributor to co-lead the first trial of this template">><<goto "A3Empower">><</link>> <<link "File it and move on without assigning ownership">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Expectations stated in public */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Reduces off-list control */ The PPMC posts a reminder that side conversations must be summarised back to dev@ before decisions. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Shares ownership across employers */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Demonstrates community direction */ A contributor volunteers to pilot the template on the next feature idea. The thread gains traction. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency += 2>> /* Keeps discussion public */ <<set $independence += 2>> /* PPMC speaks as a community, not a company */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Rebuilds trust with outsiders */ You encourage a PPMC member to respond openly: "Could a PPMC member confirm that decisions happen publicly and everyone can help shape them?" A PPMC member replies on-list, thanking the contributor and reaffirming openness. <<link "Start a concrete thread on how proposals are initiated">><<goto "B1Good">><</link>> <<link "Leave it at reassurance only">><<goto "B1Neutral">><</link>> <<link "Propose rotating volunteers to open and summarise discussion threads, ensuring representation across employers">><<goto "B1Rotate">><</link>> <<link "Add 'good first issue' labels and tag independent reviewers">><<goto "B1Labels">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Builds shared ownership */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Shifts practice toward community-led work */ The PPMC starts a thread to review how proposals begin. They notice many ideas started in a private Slack and agree to move those discussions to dev@. <<link "Invite independent contributors to co-lead the next steps">><<goto "B2Empower">><</link>> <<link "Mentor offers to draft diversity goals for the next report">><<goto "B2Overreach">><</link>> <<link "Mentor assigns named roles to 'fix diversity' now">><<goto "B2Assign">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Minor improvement via reassurance */ <<set $independence += 0>> /* Practices largely unchanged */ The reply reassures the list but does not change habits. Some private coordination continues. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

/* Revised for ASF flat structure: rotation of volunteers, not leaders */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible process tweak */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Broadens voices in discussions */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Reduces single-employer centrality */ The PPMC agrees that different people will open and summarise key proposal threads. <<link "Pair this with a no pre-meeting decisions reminder">><<goto "B2Guardrails">><</link>> <<link "Stop at rotation only">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Clarifies entry points publicly */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Lowers barrier for newcomers */ <<set $independence += 0>> /* Tooling help; governance change requires follow-up */ Issues get triaged with newcomer tags and at least one independent reviewer per PR. <<link "Wrap with a public 'how we propose' note">><<goto "B2WrapNote">><</link>> <<link "Let practice evolve without explicit guardrails">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Public inclusion and role clarity */ <<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Shares ownership across employers */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Demonstrates community-led direction */ A mentor suggests: "Could we invite one of the independent contributors to summarise the thread and co-lead next steps?" The PPMC agrees. Two volunteers step up and co-own the action items. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible intention to improve */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Mentor begins steering instead of guiding */ You offer to draft diversity and participation goals for the next report yourself. The PPMC accepts, but some feel the mentor is taking the wheel. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Perceived heavy-handedness */ <<set $independence -= 2>> /* Mentor dictates roles; undermines PPMC ownership */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Resentment from both employees and independents */ You post: "I'm assigning Alice, Bob, and Carol to lead outreach and onboarding to fix this right now." Backlash follows. Participation drops; some contributors disengage entirely. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Expectations set in public */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Guardrails limit private coordination */ A short reminder is posted: discussions and decisions belong on dev@, and any side conversation must be summarised back promptly. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Process made explicit on-list */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Moves practice toward list-first governance */ A concise post explains proposal flow and links to labelled issues. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Private outreach lowers visibility initially */ <<set $collaboration += 0>> /* Depends on public follow-up */ You privately message an active PPMC member: "There is a growing perception that decisions are made internally. Can we move more discussion to the list?" <<link "PPMC member posts an open acknowledgement with concrete steps">><<goto "C1Good">><</link>> <<link "They quietly remind colleagues but say nothing publicly">><<goto "C1Weak">><</link>> <<link "Suggest a brief office-hours post on dev@ to invite questions">><<goto "C1OfficeHours">><</link>> <<link "Propose pairing internal maintainers with independent co-reviewers">><<goto "C1Pairing">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 2>> /* Visibility restored by open follow-up */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC self-corrects publicly */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Encourages engagement from outsiders */ A PPMC member thanks the mentor and pledges to move discussions on-list. They propose a standing rule: discuss proposals only on dev@. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Private fix without public learning */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Community remains unaware */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Private coordination persists */ Some internal improvement happens, but perception remains unchanged. <<link "Post a late public summary of the private adjustments">><<goto "C2LateSummary">><</link>> <<link "Say nothing further">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Opens a channel in public view */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Low-bar participation from newcomers */ The PPMC posts a short message offering a time to answer questions and points back to dev@ for decisions. <<link "Follow with a written summary back to the list">><<goto "C2SummaryBack">><</link>> <<link "Time zones exclude many; side chat continues and decisions drift">><<goto "C2Misfire">><</link>> <<link "Treat it as a one-off and move on">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Structured inclusion in reviews */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Diversifies decision influence */ The PPMC invites an independent committer to co-review significant PRs for the next month, with summaries on dev@. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Partial recovery through later visibility */ <<set $independence += 0>> /* Structure still somewhat company-centered */ A brief on-list summary clarifies next steps, but the delay blunts impact. Some trust returns, though skepticism remains. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Captures decisions in public */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Reinforces list-first governance */ A summary is posted to dev@ with action items and next steps. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Decisions drift to private channels */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Exclusion via time zones and side chat */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Employer-controlled channels dominate */ The office-hours session excludes many due to time zones. Follow-ups move into a private chat and are not summarised. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $escalation += 2>> /* Premature escalation to IPMC */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Undercuts podling ownership */ You post to general@incubator: "This project appears dominated by one employer. Advice welcome." IPMC members note mentors should help the podling self-correct first, and escalation is for when local efforts fail. <<link "Acknowledge and refocus locally">><<goto "D1Good">><</link>> <<link "Continue the public thread">><<goto "D1Bad">><</link>> <<link "Request a formal IPMC review of the podling's diversity">><<goto "D1Formal">><</link>> <<link "Ask an experienced mentor to quietly coach you on next steps off-list">><<goto "D1Coach">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Restores mentoring balance */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC regains agency with mentor support */ You thank the IPMC for input and redirect the focus to dev@, guiding the PPMC to address the issue themselves. <<link "IPMC requests a lightweight follow-up plan to monitor diversity">><<goto "D2FollowUp">><</link>> <<link "Proceed without any follow-up planning">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Prolonged exposure and tension */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Further damages podling confidence */ The public thread grows defensive. Company employees feel attacked. External contributors disengage further. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 2>> /* Heavy-handed escalation */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Bypasses podling ownership */ A request is made for a formal review. Tension rises and participation drops. <<link "Walk it back and refocus on dev@ with a clear plan">><<goto "D2WalkBack">><</link>> <<link "Double down on the formal route">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Off-list coaching; OK if summarised back */ <<set $transparency += 0>> /* No immediate visibility */ <<set $independence += 0>> You receive tips from a seasoned mentor on approaches that preserve podling ownership. <<link "Summarise the approach publicly and empower the PPMC">><<goto "D2CoachSummary">><</link>> <<link "Keep the coaching private and proceed quietly">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Adds simple, visible accountability */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC owns the plan and reports progress */ In a brief note, the IPMC asks the PPMC to include a one-line update on decision visibility and contributor diversity in the next two reports. The PPMC agrees and leads the updates. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Explains the change in approach */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Restores local ownership */ You clarify that local correction is preferred and start a thread on dev@ to outline next steps. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Brings learning back to the list */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC-led correction */ You post a short plan on dev@: proposal template, rotation of thread-starters, and summary-back rule. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Silence reads as acceptance of status quo */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Missed mentoring opportunity */ You decide to observe. Company-employed committers reply briefly, then move on. No deeper discussion happens. <<link "Let drift continue">><<goto "E1QuietDrift">><</link>> <<link "Intervene later with a structured on-list prompt">><<goto "E2LateIntervention">><</link>> <<link "Nudge a contributor privately to start a public proposals thread">><<goto "E2Nudge">><</link>> <<link "Audit recent decisions and post an index of dev@ discussion links">><<goto "E2Index">><</link>> <<link "Downplay concerns in the next podling report">><<goto "E2Rationalize">><</link>>

<<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Ongoing lack of visibility */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Entrenches single-vendor control */ Over weeks, participation narrows further. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Late, but public prompt */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Encourages course correction */ <<set $shortcuts += 0>> /* No shortcut this time, just delayed mentoring */ You later start a thread on dev@: "Could we document where feature proposals begin and ensure they start here?" Some constructive replies follow. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Private nudge rather than public prompt */ <<set $transparency += 0>> /* No visible correction yet */ <<set $independence += 0>> /* Depends on follow-up */ A contributor agrees to start a thread but delays. <<link "Follow up publicly with a proposals kickoff thread yourself">><<goto "E3PublicKickoff">><</link>> <<link "Wait it out">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 2>> /* Makes governance traceable */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Centers the list as source of truth */ You post a simple index that links recent dev@ decisions and invites additions for anything missing. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Misleads oversight by omission */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Avoids confronting vendor dominance */ <<set $escalation += 0>> /* No escalation, but harms trust */ In the next report you write: "No major issues noted." The imbalance persists and deepens. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible action in public */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Low-friction path for others to join */ You start a dev@ thread proposing a simple template for new proposals and invite volunteers to champion items. <<link "See resolution path">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> The perception of dominance persists. A few non-employee contributors drift away, leaving a single-vendor project. In the next podling report, mentors note reduced diversity and the need to expand independent participation. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> Some corrective steps are taken, but power imbalance is not fully addressed. Discussions are more visible, yet new contributors remain hesitant. Independence remains uncertain. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> The project addressed vendor dominance transparently. Decisions now start and finish on dev@. A PPMC-owned note clarifies participation is open to all. Independent contributors co-lead next steps. Reports include brief evidence of list-based decisions and independent participation. Community health improves and diversity grows. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $total = $transparency + $independence + $collaboration - $shortcuts - $escalation>> You have reached the end of the scenario. Let us reflect. <<if $total >= 8>> You modelled ASF-aligned mentoring: open communication, PPMC independence, and inclusive governance. <</if>> <<if $total >= 4 and $total < 8>> You balanced openness with pragmatism. Some internal habits may persist, but practices are improving. <</if>> <<if $total >= 0 and $total < 4>> You achieved partial progress without fundamental change. External contributors may still view the project as company-controlled. <</if>> <<if $total < 0>> Your approach reinforced vendor dominance. Greater transparency and patience would help the project grow in ASF culture. <</if>> ''Reflection Questions'' - Which actions best demonstrate independence from any single employer? - How can mentors encourage companies to share control without alienating them? - What concise evidence could the next podling report include to show improvement? - How does this scenario connect to the ASF value of community over code? <<link "Restart Scenario">><<goto "Start">><</link>>