Rename "maturity model"

[dustinmoris]

First of all thanks for the effort that goes into maturing the DNF. I am currently not a member of the DNF (yet), but I really enjoy seeing all the great work being done here and the passionate community giving constructive feedback.

I was wondering if "maturity" ladder/model is an appropriate word for describing the actual intention of this proposal? The problem I see with "maturity" is that it suggests something negative if a project is not part of this model or at a lower level. Being "immature" is unambigiously negative and therefore not being mature or not as mature as some other project will inevitably have negative impacts on OSS projects, which are not part of it or not at the highest level.

What about re-naming it to something like "Standards Adoption Model/Ladder"?

Whatever the name is, it shouldn't suggest anything negative which is outside the scope of the DNF - like the maturity of a project. Otherwise it will indirectly pressure/force OSS projects to join the DNF for pure damage control purposes, which doesn't feel right.

[haacked]

I like the Standards Adoption Model angle. Others have thoughts on this?

[barnson]

Avoid ladder entirely; a "Joel test" list with the desired attributes on display avoids the overeditorializing of the proposed ladder approach. It lets disqualified projects (e.g., with a less-than-MIT license) demonstrate their "maturity" and lets project maintainers decide which items are most important for their users, trading off maintainer effort.

[oskardudycz]

Imho the most appropriate for that context is Enterprise Adoption Model.

As was discussed in #32 those standards treated as general are controversial. They might be applicable for the big enterprises' criteria tho. Using explicit wording for Enterprise in the name is also clears the intentions that are driving this idea.