Comments on: Understanding community is paramount to the success of your Open Source project http://klepas.org/2008/06/13/understanding-community-is-paramount-to-the-success-of-your-open-source-project/ Proudly bending beziers since 2006 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:08:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Pascal http://klepas.org/2008/06/13/understanding-community-is-paramount-to-the-success-of-your-open-source-project/comment-page-1/#comment-41928 Pascal Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:33:57 +0000 http://klepas.org/?p=473#comment-41928 @Tel: Not being a marketer or a community manager, this was my simplification into a list of what <a href="http://www.jonobacon.org/" title="Jono Bacon’s personal website" rel="nofollow">Jono Bacon</a> revealed in the noted episode of LugRadio. I am somewhat taking for granted that readers understand that they both need to have an itch to scratch—the more mainstream the itch, the better—and that in the case of a company, the primary objective should be to build a good product to scratch that itch. Being a known and trusted member of the open source community greatly aids in attracting attention to a project. The best contributors naturally are those who care about what you care about—share the same desire and goals—but you’ll have more luck with a track record and a standing with an existing community than starting your own isolated community from scratch. That is the “atmosphere”—if that’s even the right term for this—that I was thinking of, less so what corporate marketers might consider. In fact my second and third point in the entry addressed this issue: in my opinion too many corporate marketers have the wrong idea about the “atmosphere” they feel they need to create to promote their project. Throw money at, launch big, flashy advertisement campaigns and the like is what comes to mind whereas what they should be doing is getting involved, pay several developers to work on open source projects until they are trusted contributors, or hire existing leaders. This is what Canonical, Novell, and Redhat already do. Ultimately potential contributors will be more likely to hop on-board if they see a well-known and trusted project leader with several successful projects already under his or her belt than a company developer whose name is new to everyone, but is elevated along with the company project onto a golden pedestal by advertisementz and money. <p>Let evolution take its course—if your project fails, figure out what went wrong along the way and start again is good advice. I think we’re actually both arguing the same points—I just presumed many of the ones you raised where given and shouldn’t be spelled out (plus it would have messed up my neat three point list, which is far easier to remember than six or seven points).</p> Cheers. @Tel: Not being a mar­keter or a com­mu­nity manager, this was my sim­pli­fi­ca­tion into a list of what Jono Bacon revealed in the noted episode of LugRa­dio. I am some­what taking for granted that readers under­stand that they both need to have an itch to scratch—the more main­stream the itch, the better—and that in the case of a company, the primary objec­tive should be to build a good product to scratch that itch.

Being a known and trusted member of the open source com­mu­nity greatly aids in attract­ing atten­tion to a project. The best con­trib­u­tors nat­u­rally are those who care about what you care about—share the same desire and goals—but you’ll have more luck with a track record and a stand­ing with an exist­ing com­mu­nity than start­ing your own iso­lated com­mu­nity from scratch. That is the “atmosphere”—if that’s even the right term for this—that I was think­ing of, less so what cor­po­rate mar­keters might con­sider. In fact my second and third point in the entry addressed this issue: in my opinion too many cor­po­rate mar­keters have the wrong idea about the “atmosphere” they feel they need to create to promote their project. Throw money at, launch big, flashy adver­tise­ment cam­paigns and the like is what comes to mind whereas what they should be doing is getting involved, pay several devel­op­ers to work on open source projects until they are trusted con­trib­u­tors, or hire exist­ing leaders. This is what Canon­i­cal, Novell, and Redhat already do. Ulti­mately poten­tial con­trib­u­tors will be more likely to hop on-​board if they see a well-​known and trusted project leader with several suc­cess­ful projects already under his or her belt than a company devel­oper whose name is new to every­one, but is ele­vated along with the company project onto a golden pedestal by adver­tise­mentz and money.

Let evo­lu­tion take its course—if your project fails, figure out what went wrong along the way and start again is good advice. I think we’re actu­ally both arguing the same points—I just pre­sumed many of the ones you raised where given and shouldn’t be spelled out (plus it would have messed up my neat three point list, which is far easier to remem­ber than six or seven points).

Cheers.

]]> By: Tel http://klepas.org/2008/06/13/understanding-community-is-paramount-to-the-success-of-your-open-source-project/comment-page-1/#comment-41927 Tel Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:06:30 +0000 http://klepas.org/?p=473#comment-41927 I have a big problem with your methodology, because it seems exactly the wrong way to look at the world. Mind you, it's not unique to you, I see it from marketing guys all the time -- create the right "atmosphere" and your product will be a great hit. I try to tell them, "maybe we should work on improving the product", but that tends to be the last thing anyone wants to do. Getting back to your list: <ol> <li>Pick a project that is genuinely useful. It doesn't have to be 100% mainstream, but enough with the photo organisers already. Identifying a genuine need and figuring out what fills that need is the real breakthrough for any startup project (or startup company).</li> <li>Identify with people who have similar needs to yourself. Those are the only people who really care about what you are delivering.</li> <li>Never feel that success of this particular project is the most important thing in the world. If the project starts to die a natural death then mosr likely nature is right and you should retry step 1. (which is the most difficult step).</li> </ol> I have a big problem with your method­ol­ogy, because it seems exactly the wrong way to look at the world. Mind you, it’s not unique to you, I see it from mar­ket­ing guys all the time — create the right “atmos­phere” and your product will be a great hit. I try to tell them, “maybe we should work on improv­ing the product”, but that tends to be the last thing anyone wants to do.

Getting back to your list:

  1. Pick a project that is gen­uinely useful. It doesn’t have to be 100% main­stream, but enough with the photo organ­is­ers already. Iden­ti­fy­ing a genuine need and fig­ur­ing out what fills that need is the real break­through for any startup project (or startup company).
  2. Iden­tify with people who have similar needs to your­self. Those are the only people who really care about what you are deliv­er­ing.
  3. Never feel that success of this par­tic­u­lar project is the most impor­tant thing in the world. If the project starts to die a natural death then mosr likely nature is right and you should retry step 1. (which is the most dif­fi­cult step).
]]>