Continuing the discussion from Governance Readiness Working Group and Open Source Archetypes - Mozilla + Open Tech Strategies (May 2018).pdf (441.7 KB):
Hi @heatharensen, welcome to the Sustain community!
I finished reading it this past week. It is an incredibly useful framework for approaching overall sustainability models for open source projects.
DPGs could be a blend of Wide Open, Mass Market, Trusted Vendor, maybe others in specific contexts. I think a model is missing for Mass Market projects that are still targeted for developers. These are Mass Market projects that also exhibit similar community standards to Wide Open projects.
From my personal experiences, I am thinking of the Fedora Project and its influence as an upstream for one of the most widely-deployed open source operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). RHEL is also part of a larger dependency chain of other open source projects that build on top of or in combination with an open source Linux stack (e.g. Rust, Python, Apache HTTPD, Firefox, LibreOffice, MediaWiki, various TLS/encryption libraries, any database vendor, etc.).
I hypothesize DPGs exist that may have a dual-appeal to user communities and developer communities. There is a stronger pathway to on-board new developers from the user community. So, depending on the context of the DPG, it could also allow the same clustering of downstream projects in a way that is often exhibited in Linux Communities (a specific community and subset of communities that were deliberately avoided in the Mozilla + Open Tech Strategies report):
Pg. 17, footnote 9:
In some ways the Linux kernel project could be considered “Wide Open”. However, both technically and culturally, Linux kernel development is sui generis and we have deliberately avoided using it as the basis for any archetype.
These are still some early thoughts. I will try to collect myself a bit and put together a blog post or an Open Source Heuristic.