Skip to content

COMMUNITY_ENGAGEMENT_PLAN.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
185 lines (132 loc) · 8.66 KB

COMMUNITY_ENGAGEMENT_PLAN.md

File metadata and controls

185 lines (132 loc) · 8.66 KB
Raw

Community Engagement Plan

Purpose

This plan explains how the Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile should participate in public OSS communities, AAIF/LF-style forums, GitHub issues, GitHub discussions, Discord, LinkedIn, and adjacent maintainer spaces.

The goal is to earn technical feedback through useful artifacts and careful follow-up. The goal is not volume, promotion, endorsement, or artificial visibility.

This is an independent OSS profile. It is not an Agentic AI Foundation project, not a Linux Foundation project, and not endorsed by either organization.

Engagement Principles

  • Lead with a concrete artifact, not a pitch.
  • Ask for technical correction before asking for attention.
  • Keep every public claim linked to repository evidence.
  • Prefer one thoughtful follow-up over repeated reminders.
  • Do not tag maintainers cold unless they already engaged or are the documented owner of the specific issue.
  • Treat open PRs and issues as work under review, not accepted contribution.
  • Keep AI-assisted drafting human-reviewed before posting.
  • Do not post private customer, employer, security, credential, or proprietary material.

Canonical Public Links

Use these links as the public evidence spine:

Community Surfaces

Surface Use Frequency Boundary
GitHub issues in this repository canonical review, adoption trials, and change requests ongoing public, evidence-first
GitHub discussions in this repository open-ended ecosystem-fit questions low cadence no endorsement claims
AAIF Discord or forum spaces ask where the profile is useful or duplicative one initial post, then only reply to engagement no cold repetition
LinkedIn human summary that points back to GitHub evidence occasional, after repository evidence exists no inflated contributor or foundation claims
Upstream AAIF-adjacent repositories focused issues or PRs against existing maintainer needs only when a concrete issue exists no generic promotion
AAIF Ambassador-style contribution lane one project-based educational contribution tied to AGENTS.md, MCP, Goose, or agentgateway monthly if human-approved no ambassador or endorsement claim without public acceptance

First AAIF-Style Forum Ask

Use this shape when posting in a community forum:

I am looking for technical feedback, not endorsement.

I maintain an independent OSS Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile for repositories that need clearer evidence around AGENTS.md instructions, tool/action boundaries, human approval, identity assumptions, audit events, OSS fallbacks, security posture, and reproducible validation.

Docs portal:
https://kmishra1204.github.io/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/

Review issue:
https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/4

I am trying to understand whether this is useful beside AGENTS.md guidance, MCP/server readiness, agent gateway governance use cases, or whether it should stay independent. If there is a better existing effort, I would rather align than create another checklist.

Ambassador-Style Monthly Contribution

Use this shape for one public educational contribution:

This is an independent contribution tied to an AAIF-hosted project. It is not an AAIF endorsement claim.

Primary project lane: AGENTS.md / MCP / Goose / agentgateway
Developer problem: ...
What the contribution teaches: ...
What the reader can try in 20 minutes: ...
Where the repo evidence lives: ...
What feedback would improve it: ...

First published monthly contribution:

Second published monthly contribution:

  • Primary project lane: MCP
  • Artifact: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/MCP_TOOL_BOUNDARY_EVIDENCE_CHECKLIST.md
  • Developer problem: tool-heavy repositories often omit side-effect, schema, approval, identity, audit, and fallback evidence.
  • What the reader can try in 20 minutes: add a tool-boundary table and approval checklist for one MCP-style server or agent-callable tool surface.
  • Human-reviewed ask: use the MCP review posting packet for one field-level correction request before posting in public.
  • Boundary: this is independent developer education, not MCP compliance, AAIF Ambassador acceptance, or foundation endorsement.

Response Rules

When someone replies:

  • thank them once
  • restate the technical point in neutral language
  • open a follow-up issue only if a concrete change is needed
  • avoid debating endorsement, status, or affiliation
  • update the profile only when the feedback improves the artifact
  • link release notes when a feedback-driven change ships

When nobody replies:

  • wait at least seven days before any follow-up in the same venue
  • improve the profile through examples, docs, or accepted upstream work instead of reposting
  • do not tag additional people just to force attention

Adoption Trial Rules

An adoption trial must be opt-in.

Do not list a repository as an adopter unless a maintainer publicly agrees.

A valid trial can be small:

  • one read-only review comment
  • one branch with a boundary model
  • one draft agentic-readiness.json
  • one issue explaining why the profile is too heavy or not useful

The adoption registry should record only public links and should distinguish trial, review, and adoption.

AI-Assisted Posting Boundary

AI assistance may be used to draft a post, summarize feedback, or prepare release notes.

Human review is required before posting.

Do not use automation to:

  • mass-post across communities
  • scrape people for outreach
  • impersonate a maintainer
  • claim contributor credit before merge
  • infer endorsement from silence
  • paste private material into public issues or prompts

Quality Metrics

Useful signals:

  • external reviewer comments
  • concrete issue feedback
  • accepted upstream PRs
  • profile changes based on public feedback
  • opt-in adoption trials
  • maintainers reusing an artifact

Weak signals:

  • post impressions
  • generic likes
  • open PR count without reviews
  • reposting the same ask
  • self-claimed affiliation

Escalation Gates

Do not prepare a formal AAIF project or working-group proposal until there is public evidence of:

  • external reviewers
  • opt-in adoption trials
  • maintainer engagement
  • a stable governance path
  • clear relation to AGENTS.md, MCP, agentgateway, or another existing effort
  • user decision on trademark, account, signatory, and contribution implications

Review Cadence

Review this plan after:

  • two public external feedback signals
  • one adoption trial
  • a major release
  • a maintainer asks for different engagement behavior
  • a community moderator requests changes