change(ch0): Integrated v2 audience description

[lenucksi]

Enhances the audience description in Chapter 0 to include additional target readers for the second edition.

This PR adds descriptions for leaders, practitioners, educators, and contributors to clarify who benefits from the book.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for ospomindmap canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	00ea065
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/ospomindmap/deploys/6929f8f59153380008941e6b

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for ospobook ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	00ea065
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/ospobook/deploys/6929f8f5a4df62000761fdd0
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-727--ospobook.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[lenucksi]

@alice-sowerby @anajsana See the November call regarding the modified audience segment. I also added the term on open source management operations in the header that was requested by @anajsana.

[koozz]

What's our stance on contributions with AI? There are project that have a no-LLM policy, others have a must-disclose-LLM-usage policy, the Linux Foundation has the Generative AI Policy.

Obvious by the double spaces and in combination with the emdash, this seems generated and not reviewed by the committer. I do not have a problem with using LLMs, but I would like to keep the quality high (and hope that the LLM doesn't output copyrighted text).

[lenucksi]

What's our stance on contributions with AI? There are project that have a no-LLM policy, others have a must-disclose-LLM-usage policy, the Linux Foundation has the Generative AI Policy.

Obvious by the double spaces and in combination with the emdash, this seems generated and not reviewed by the committer. I do not have a problem with using LLMs, but I would like to keep the quality high (and hope that the LLM doesn't output copyrighted text).

It is indeed a LLM-based summary of call discussion minutes with additional input on the constraints and notes on the call to be used for the output.
The content was indeed both reviewed by myself (overlooking the double space) as well as by the participants of the following call and accepted for discussion. The content was even adapted manually to fit the current style (bold face, additions), thus not pure LLM material.

As for the copyright part: I'd argue that this small snippet change will not pass the threshold for "required creative effort" and thus will not activate the applicability of the relevant IP laws. This is the equivalent of a random for-loop every junior/mid engineer would write...

[semioticrobotic]

Should this be merged prior to beginning work on v2, or are we planning for this to be part of that work?

[lenucksi]

Should this be merged prior to beginning work on v2, or are we planning for this to be part of that work?

I'd be good to go in my book (too easy of a pun, sorry 😉). @anajsana wanted to leave some insight on her "open source management operations" term - which is now present in https://github.com/todogroup/ospology/pull/727/files#diff-c0886d81a653742b1f78aa0e4fde27fc618d182f37f7b097eb05f1142d9c2008R11

Also @koozz had something on LLM use here. So may he chime in on that.
Other than that, let's get that merged in and change if needed later.

[semioticrobotic]

These are noble goals, for sure, though achieving them would require a rather specific organizational structure. I would want to see how the discussion in #726 resolves before committing to something like this.

[lenucksi]

Those just reflect the discussion as per the October call notes.
Please elaborate what you mean by "rather specific organizational structure".

On the educational use case: Usually higher-ed educators can mix, match and add/expose things if the basic content is good enough and useful in an isolated way - thus also the proposal of the #726 learning path path approach.

[semioticrobotic]

Please elaborate what you mean by "rather specific organizational structure".

Sure. Sorry; I realize now my comment was vague.

What I mean is that when I see phrases like "modular curricula," "structured pathway," "bridging material," etc., I sense a rather specific organizational structure for the book—or, at the very least, for each chapter of the book (which can then be "sliced and diced" according to a readers' needs, if I understand your vision in #726). Creating a book that meets these goals for this audience might require, for example, all chapters to have clearly articulated learning objectives, review/comprehension questions, suggestions for discussion and learning activities, and so on—that is, the components that are most useful to educators. To be clear, I'm not saying this is impossible or even undesirable; I'm just saying that it's a significant advancement from the book's v1 version, and I would want to be sure the community is clear on what would be necessary for meeting that vision if we were to accept and merge it. I am probably just being my usual, too-pragmatic self. 😄

I get the sense, though, that the group assembled at the most recent meeting already agreed to this vision, and if that's the case then I do not mean to derail or override it. At any rate, I think this is something on which our technical editors (e.g., @alice-sowerby) should sign off before we commit.

At the very least, I would suggest editing these descriptions so they're perhaps a bit shorter and clearer, and so that they don't necessarily prescribe a structure for the book (just describe the goals of the reader). I'll offer some inline suggestions to show you what I mean.

[semioticrobotic]

A few proposed edits to add to the mix, @lenucksi and @koozz. See what you think.

(cc: @alice-sowerby)

[semioticrobotic]

Suggested change

	* **New and experienced contributors to open source programs** who require a structured pathway—assembled from focused chapters and supported with bridging material—to build organizational capability, upstream engagement, and supply-chain awareness.
	This book is for readers who need clear, actionable guidance on open source governance practices, risk management, and community engagement. It discusses ways practitioners can develop, integrate, and scale these processes in their organizations, and explains who might benefit from a structured guidebook for implementing best practices.
	More specifically, it will be useful for:
	* **Executives, policymakers, and organizational decision makers** responsible for setting up, supporting, or funding an OSPO.
	* **Open source program managers** who coordinate open source activities, advance an organization's open source capabilities, and build relationships with open source communities.
	* **Organizational leaders** establishing or refining open source-related processes (aligning them with existing management, compliance, and risk frameworks) and ensuring an OSPO contributes to broader organizational objectives.
	* **Legal and compliance professionals** who handle legal matters related to open source software licensing and compliance.
	* **Educators and trainers** introducing open source program management to students and professionals across fields such as computer science, business, law, and engineering.

[semioticrobotic]

This proposed change is in response to my earlier comment.

[lenucksi]

Pinging @cornelius on this too as I remember him chiming in on this discussion in the October call too.