Pattern idea: "Contribution negotiation"

In reading through some of the patterns in the initial phase in the "reluctance to accept contributions" I came across a cross reference to a pattern idea that I found interesting:

"Contribution negotiation"

The solutions discussed in "Reluctance to Accept Contributions" include the "30 day warranty" pattern, but also clear process and guidelines around how to submit contributions. The pattern does not talk about expectation management around which types of contributions would be interesting to the host project. It also does not discuss any negotiations or communication that may occur before the changes are made and submitted. In our contributor training (in the Learning Path) we discuss some of that in more detail: Contributions start not with submitting the patch set. Rather contributors should reach out to the host team before making modifications to seek guidance on whether the changes make any sense in terms of roadmap, general architecture and the like. A side effect could be that the host team offers mentoring time thus reducing the time to implement a modification. Such communication would be particularly helpful for larger changes. The entire communication should happen in project channels that are company-wide accessible, archived and linkeable so they can be referenced in the future.

Start by reading the linked Reluctance to Accept Contributions and 30-day warranty patterns, then review the contributor training material referenced in the issue. A completed contribution would need an agreed pattern scope and documented guidance for expectation-setting, communication, and negotiation before larger changes are implemented.