Maintainer Relief Playbook

A playbook to be used, with other resources and feedback from maintainers on what help they most need to find balance.

Resources

• Pracitioner Guide - Responsiveness (CHAOSS)
• Time to close

Process Milestones

Note: that some milestones may not currently apply to a project (for example, there are no existing contributors to sponsor), but documentation for future consideration is encouraged.

1. Kick off meeting: Maintainer meets with OSS Wishlist admin and pracitioner (whether sponsor employee or verified pracitioner) to align on goals and timeline.
2. Responsiveness & Workload Help
3. Community Interface & Channel Management
4. Resource Augmentation & Delegation
5. Operational Quality Hygiene
6. Wrap up meeting: Maintainer meets with OSS Wishlist maintainer and pracitioner
7. Survey (maintainer and pracitioner)

Maintainer Relief – Peer Review Rubric

Purpose: Evaluate how effectively a project reduces unnecessary maintainer labor, prevents burnout, and maintains healthy contributor pathways.

Scoring Scale per Criterion:
0 = Missing / No evidence
1 = Minimal / Ad-hoc
2 = Adequate but inconsistent
3 = Strong systems and tooling in place
4 = Excellent, continuously improved and proactive

---

A. Responsiveness & Workload Management (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
A1. PR / Issue Response Expectations	Clear SLAs or triage norms; auto-labeling; backlog managed intentionally.	0–4
A2. Spam & Low-Quality Contribution Filtering	Templates, validation checks, human-trained spam filters; maintainers shielded from junk.	0–4
A3. Automation for Repetitive Tasks	Bots perform merging checks, labeling, stale closing, release automation.	0–4

---

B. Community Interface & Channel Management (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
B1. Clear Support Channels	Questions routed to correct forums/docs; issues used only for actionable work.	0–4
B2. Guidance for New Contributors	Onboarding docs, contributor guidelines, self-service resources reduce maintainer time.	0–4
B3. AI Assistance Policy & Quality Control	Mitigation of “AI slop”: templates warn against hallucinated patches; checks detect low-quality AI submissions.	0–4

---

C. Resource Augmentation & Delegation (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
C1. Maintainer Helpers / Moderators	Community roles or triage teams reduce load on core maintainers.	0–4
C2. Task Rotation & Bus-Burden Relief	Rotating responsibilities; maintainer time off supported; burnout signals acknowledged.	0–4
C3. Contributor Growth Reduces Bottlenecks	Trusted contributors receive permissions to merge, triage, and support.	0–4

---

D. Operational Quality Hygiene (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
D1. Pre-Submission Quality Controls	CI verifies linting, tests, docs build; required checks before any maintainer involvement.	0–4
D2. Issue / PR Templates & Category Structure	Forms enforce reproducibility and deter noise; bots close incomplete submissions.	0–4
D3. Clear Prioritization & Deferral Rules	Signals what maintainers will and won’t do; reduces emotional labour and boundary violations.	0–4

---

✅ Total Score: / 48 pts

Rating	Descriptor
44–48	Excellent — Workload well-managed, maintainers protected and thriving
36–43	Strong — Minor adjustments needed to further reduce stress
24–35	Adequate — Maintainers still overburdened in key areas
12–23	Weak — Maintainer burnout risk high, unsustainable workload
0–11	Not Viable — Maintainers carrying all burden with high distress

---

Reviewer Notes

• Evidence of burnout risk:
• Firefighting patterns (ex: spam spikes crushing triage):
• Most impactful improvements: