maybe: ...how the software life cycle may be managed in a more InnerSource way..

Maybe: This may help provide a helpful framework for connecting patterns to help practitioners make better sense of InnerSource from a development lifecycle perspective.

Maybe: Visitors to InnerSource patterns may often wonder about the applicability of a given pattern to their own situation.

Maybe: As the software production chain involves roles with different goals, the InnerSource way of working has to be taken up by everyone involved in the software production chain. For example, business related people as Product Owners may be reluctant to move into a more collaborative and transparent way of producing software. And this reluctance may occur with other roles as well.

Comment
Whenever possible, forces should be stated in a way that indicates the trade-offs (which can hint at the levers by which one can react to a given force). So if Product Owners are reluctant to be more collaborative and transparent, what is motivating them to do so? (Is it a cultural tendency to secrecy to protect proprietary information to gain a strategic advantage? If so, then is it a matter of noting which information needs to be protected vs. which info, when shared, can result in compensating advantages?)

The forces in this pattern likely need to be further brainstormed/developed/analyzed.

Suggestion added.

With respect to the comment, I agree with you. However, this pattern could be seen as the umbrella for the other discussions. As an example, we're discussing on POs. What if we define more in detail the different stages? Or does it make sense to have this discussion in new patterns? (e.g., InnerSourcing Product Owners).

This context feels a bit vague. Is the problem that the management of several business units are investigating the adoption of InnerSource as a means of optimizing their SW development and they don't know where to start or how to organize/apply the many patterns that exist in the InnerSource Patterns repository? Then this probably should be stated here in the context.

Not exactly this. I've added a small paragraph after this in the new commit. The idea with this pattern is that InnerSource works at several levels in the organization. As an example, product owners are sometimes left out of the InnerSource discussions once InnerSource is working, but POs are the ones deciding on next features and next steps. This model takes into account that they exist and how to grow them into this scenario.

The Patlet does not describe the problem yet that this pattern looks to solve.

We typically suggest to format the Patlet like this:

• 1st sentence to describe the problem
• 2nd sentence to describe the solution

"how InnerSource this is" is hard to read.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here?

Do you mean something like this:

This model is useful as well to compare to other existing models in the company, and check to what extent those support InnerSource (or at least don't prevent it from happening).

Do we have these principles in writing somewhere?

We have this pattern but I don't think that this is what you are referring to here:
https://patterns.innersourcecommons.org/p/document-your-guiding-principles

Formatting suggestion.

If we rename the title, we should consider changing the filename as well.