Just what value does "community" provide, anyway?

Pierre suggests that dual-licensing hurts community. Jonathan Schwartz boasts that Java has the world's largest community. MySQL and Sun retreat (a little) from plans to offer closed extensions to the MySQL database because the community gods get angry.

What, exactly, is this "community?" Who gave it so much power? And why do we care about it?

As we'll be discussing on Monday at Sun's Community One conference (note the name?), companies are judged as good or bad based on the strength of their communities. But what is a company's community? In one breath we assume community relates to the number of outside developers that contribute to a project. In the other breath (as Schwartz does in the link above) we suggest that community is all about the gross number of users of a project.

Which is it? Does it matter?

First of all, let's get one thing straight: Community, in the classic sense (i.e., those that contribute to a project through code), doesn't pay the bills. Community may contribute code, but almost by definition this is a group with more time and expertise than money. As Fabrizio at Funambol is fond of saying, you shouldn't try to upsell your community. Be grateful that they're there and that they give to you. Don't expect them to give cash.

Now, if we assume that not only does community not pay the bills but also generally doesn't contribute any good, either, we're left with a very serious (but never asked) question:

Does community really matter all that much?

"Yes!" we hasted to cry, but I'm not convinced as to the reason. I, myself, have suggested that a company without community is like an emperor without clothes. But while that makes for a good sound bite, I'm not sure it's accurate. At least, not in a deep, meaningful way.

Can companies sit at the center of a disinterested, organic open-source, code-contributing community? I don't think so. At least, I've yet to see it work. Eclipse, Mozilla, and other non-profits are good at corralling community contributions, including from members of corporations. But that's because they're not personally interested in outselling their partners in the community.

The one truly thriving corporate community is, I hate to say it, Microsoft. Some suggest that Microsoft dominates its community, and this is certainly true. But Microsoft also makes it possible for many to make good money in its ecosystem.

For open-source companies to thrive, they need to enable system integrators and other members of these corporate communities to thrive. Corporate open-source communities can encourage contributions from their customers and from these corporations in an open-source ecosystem. They will likely not get much in the way of "community" contributions in the old sense.

Is this a bad thing? Probably not. But it means that open-source companies must look to the strength of partners in their community as much as they look to their own strength.

Agree? Disagree?

[asadotzler]

Matt, I'm a bit confused. You said,
>Can companies sit at the center of a disinterested, organic open-source,
>code-contributing community? I don't think so. At least, I've yet to see it
>work.

Then you said,
>Eclipse, Mozilla, and other non-profits are good at corralling community
>contributions, including from members of corporations.

You've basically said that companies can't host communities here and then given two great examples, IBM and Mozilla, that directly contradict your claim.

Are you saying that the Mozilla community doesn't contain organic open-source code contributors? or that Mozilla isn't a company? If the first, then I'd disagree pretty strongly. Over 40% of the code that makes up Firefox 3 came from people outside of the employ of the Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla employs less than 100 developers, yet it took the wide-ranging talents and expertise of over 500 developers to make Firefox 3 happen. If it's the second, I don't know how you can say that Mozilla isn't, among other things, a company.

- A

[asadotzler]

hrm. no formatting. that makes reading comments kind of difficult. sorry about that.

[arjenlentz]

Community = mindshare: free marketing/distribution/support. A large number of people being somehow familiar with a product makes that product more enticing than others, more so than quality actually (which is also a subjective thing in itself)

Microsoft is indeed very smart and effective with its ecosystem, this is well described in "The Keystone Advantage" (http://www.amazon.com/Keystone-Advantage-Ecosystems-Innovation-Sustainability/dp/1591393078) and this is also the one thing that the OSS world completely disregards when discussing the merits of OSS vs closed source (and often MS is used as an example for closed source stuff). The argument goes something like "Linux is clearly better than Windows, so why the heck aren't you using it already!" which of course only makes sense when uttered between two geeks who are on the same wavelength anyway ;-)
To a lay person, a Linux desktop really does look similar to a Windows desktop (regardless of window manager choice) and they're not qualified to judge quality... however, they are receptive to mindshare... everybody uses it, and there's a lot of stuff available for it... products, support, etc. They see that every time they go past a shop. So there you have it, end of that debate ;-)

Ecosystem is important (for OSS it's called community, but I think generically ecosystem is a good phrase for it) for any company, organisation or product. You cannot control it (nor should you try) but you can enable or sabotage it. And it's difficult to describe, but specific attempts to "leverage" a community tend to fail and backfire, whereas other activities/interactions do provide mutual benefit.
I think it comes down to the fact that an ecosystem wants to see everybody as an equal participant, the fact that some company might be where most of the developers work (or whatever) gives them extra responsibility and maybe some karma, but that's about it.
And another important observation: thriving ecosystems *appear* to run themselves. If you see one entity very busy with announcements and such, that tends to not be a thriving ecosystem....


You also mentioned "But that's because they're not personally interested in outselling their partners in the community." which is one of the things MySQL is struggling with (IMHO). On the one hand they're like the caretakers of the MySQL thing, and on the other hand they are also a MySQL services company (builds, support, consulting, training). In principle MySQL is very happy with others being active in that marketplace, but partnering is pretty much only interesting if you don't have MySQL skills already (i.e. you're a training firm but want to extend into MySQL topics). In addition, part of the agreement is to plug MySQL Enterprise and not talk about MySQL Community Edition in any context. I understand "why", but I think it's the wrong approach. This might actually be a good example of an attempt to leverage/manipulate part of the ecosystem.
(By the way, I'm not just whinging about this, I've been in discussion with people at MySQL to see how that situation can be improved.)

[ShaunRConnolly]

Hi Matt,

I discussed the definition of 'community" a while back and made the case that it's not so black and white:
http://connollyshaun.blogspot.com/2007/03/open-source-community-and-barack-obama.html

The crux of my point was stated as:
"In my opinion, there are neighborhoods within the larger community that have their own perspectives and ways of interacting with the larger community. So, yes, there is the core open source development neighborhood, but there are also neighborhoods for customers, partners, indirect users, etc. and they are all active community participants in their own ways. "