InnerSource communities exist in a corporate context and are thus more constrained than Open Source Communities. There can be times when a business unit’s interests are at odds with those of the community. Companies are more concerned with the bottom line and thus with the products produced by an InnerSource community. They are also often more concerned with the short and medium term results of the community. InnerSource communities, on the other hand understand that a healthy community is a precondition for healthy code and are naturally more concerned with the longevity of both the product and the community. This is why many InnerSource initiatives were modeled after the Apache Way, which has the motto "Community over Code".
It is in this potential area of conflict where the Trusted Committer plays a vital role. Trusted Committers build trust with the organization and, building on that trust, act as an advocate for the interests of the community and the long term health of the software in the company. They are responsible for communicating technical as well community related risks to management. At the same time, Trusted Committers need to be strategic and work within the degrees of freedom afforded by their companies.
Related to this, Trusted Committers need to make sure that the community and individual contributors get public credit for their work, to make sure everyone is aware of the valuable contribution made. Public credit is kind of the currency in which contributors are being paid, especially those who contribute voluntarily. It is good practice to commend valuable contributors publicly and making sure their managers are CC’d as well. Neglecting to give credit, on the other hand, can be hugely frustrating for individual contributors and very detrimental for the health of the community overall. Neglecting to give credit can occur in companies which are not yet accustomed to the InnerSource working model or when the software being developed by the InnerSource community runs behind the scenes and managers were simply not aware of the community’s contribution. A good Trusted Committer will engage with management and advocate the need for public credit in this case. Failure to give credit is almost never done in bad faith, though, and Trusted Committers should be able to easily correct that.
Another common example where the Trusted Committer’s advocacy is needed is when contributors are not given time or permission to make a contribution. This situation can can happen if the community is not working on a product that belongs to the domain of the contributor’s department and thus not relevant for the respective manager’s goals. In this case, the Trusted Committer should engage in discussion with the contributor’s manager and lobby for an alternative decision.
In summary, there are many situations in which Trusted Committers need to advocate the interests of individual contributors and their community as a whole to the organization. They do this because they understand that the value that the community can provide to the organization depends on the health and longevity of the community and ultimately on a trustworthy relationship between both.