Open Source for Mandatory or OC2?

Stage 1
1

I have open source contributions to 3 different libraries of average size (100-300 stars), adding new features and improving their functionality. Initially, I was planning to include this evidence in OC2, as the changes are not really substantial. However, I am now thinking that my mandatory evidence may not be very strong, and maybe moving this from OC2 to Mandatory could strengthen it a bit.

My Mandatory evidences are:

  • Two reference letters from senior management describing me as a leader and telling how I “led the growth of a product-led digital technology company.”
  • Company private GitHub repository statistics showing that mainly I made contributions to the main company product (1000 commits).
  • Job contract with a salary much higher than the average, followed by another contract from the same company with a salary promotion.

OC2:

  • Open source contributions to three different libraries of average size.

OC3:

  • Letter from employer acknowledging me as a key engineer and highlighting a particular significant contribution that led to the company’s growth.
  • Company documentation confirming this significant contribution.
  • Share options grant for this particular significant contribution.

OC4:

  • Publication of an article with a high number of downloads.
  • Two other publications in another journal.

So the question is: should I move open source contributions to the Mandatory criteria just to strengthen it a bit, or leave it in OC2? Or this can only weaken my Mandatory evidences?

2

OC4 is about academic achievements, are your publication in a peer-reviewed journal?

You need to choose two optional criteria, of you have a valid case for OC4 you can use your open source contributions for MC.

3

Yes, my OC4 publications are in an academic scientific journal which has a review before publication.

Initially, I wanted to support two of my optional criteria with additional OC2 in case they don’t like one of my OC3 or OC4 but now I’m going to move it to Mandatory.

So, I just wanted to ask if it can make Mandatory weaker instead… Because I am not “a significant contributor to a substantial open source project” as they require for mandatory, I just did regular improvements that several people were asking…

4

Hey @Roman . i am also in the same boat as you. I just wanted to ask you about your github profile, if that is okay. My git hub profile shows contributions to some public repos. and open source projects in terms of PR reviews and catching their issues.

is there some kind of guideline as to what is a good GitHub profile, that you are referring to?

5

Hi, I believe you should not just give them a link to your GitHub profile, but show each merge (pull request) URL and explain in detail what it does and why it is important for the community.

But as far as I know, there is no guideline on how GitHub profile should look or should be presented.

And because there is no explanation of what is “a significant contributor to a substantial open source project” I have the fear of putting my open source contributions to the Mandatory criteria.

1 Like
6

You need to choose exactly two optional criteria. You can’t submit evidence to three and have them pick.

Your MC is all internal company evidence, I think the github profile with external contributions will help. Do you have any other evidence from outside your workplace?

7

Oh, I didn’t know about “exactly two optional criteria”. Then of course I will use everything else in support of Mandatory.
Unfortunately, I don’t have anything else outside the workplace, but I hope, that because the evidence is all about a UK-based company this might be strong enough.
Thanks!