Author Archive for Elizabeth Tatham

The power of community – open source and otherwise

I broke my arm while ice-skating with the kids back in February half-term. For the first few days and weeks after the accident, life was turned upside-down. I couldn’t dress myself or butter a slice of toast – how was I going to look after two children, run a household and hold down a job?

I need not have worried. My circle of friends immediately took over, bringing round meals, taking care of the children and ferrying me to and from the hospital. They rearranged their lives to accommodate our activities, cheerfully dividing the swimming and ballet runs among themselves. I didn’t even have to ask. My employer also made life easier by being flexible and allowing me, once I was well enough, to work from home if necessary, and never putting any pressure on me.

Of course my husband carried the biggest load, but he calmly accepted the situation and just got on with it, almost always with patience and good humour. He did much of the childcare, all of the driving and made the packed lunches – though didn’t take to cooking in the way that I hoped he might! All this while doing his own job, renovating the house and planning a move to Australia – but that’s another story, perhaps for a future blog.

Mercifully, I wasn’t totally helpless for very long. Pretty quickly I managed to find a way of doing almost everything. My methods were unorthodox but they worked: I could open toothpaste with my good hand, while clamping the tube between my knees; I folded washing using one hand and my teeth; I anchored a loaf of bread with the elbow of my broken arm so that I could slice it. (It was either that or gnaw the end of the loaf.) I became quite proud of my ability to improvise and master the myriad practical challenges that daily life now presented. Like a toddler, I was fiercely independent about doing things for myself – though, thanks to the fact that I hadn’t broken my dominant arm, could feed myself less messily.

So, the experience, while I wouldn’t wish to repeat it, has had its benefits. It has reminded me how lucky I am to have the friends and family I have: although I’m pretty resilient, I could not have managed without them. I’ve also realised that even in good times we all draw strength from each other. In short, it has underlined the value and power of the community I have around me.

Here at OSS Watch, we are interested in the communities surrounding open source projects, which are no less vital to the survival of those projects. For more information on the importance of the open source community, read our briefing documents How to build an open source community and A guide to participating in an open source community.

Open Source Junction 1: cross-platform mobile apps – the extras

Following the publication of Michelle Pauli’s blog report on our recent event, we are pleased to bring you a series of mini-interviews with speakers and attendees from both industry and academia. The interviews give a flavour of the range of interests represented at the event, and an insight into why people came and whether their expectations were met. Enjoy.

Abi James wants to learn more about how open source could bring assistive technology tools to mobile platforms.
YouTube Preview Image

EA Draffan has learned more and networked more at this event than has been possible in weeks of desk work.
YouTube Preview Image

Gabriel Hanganu tells us why OSS Watch decided to run this
event.
YouTube Preview Image

Julian Harty is curious about open source communities and is enjoying networking with key people who can help him in his work at eBay.
YouTube Preview Image

Iris Lapinski tells us about Apps for Good, a technology charity that helps young people to create apps that change their world.
YouTube Preview Image

Mark Johnson is exploring mobile development and has already met people he could collaborate with.
YouTube Preview Image

Mike Jones describes Mobile Campus Assistant, which provides useful information for students.
YouTube Preview Image

Nick Allott describes the challenge of creating web apps that can talk to each other securely.
YouTube Preview Image

Ross Gardler explains that one of the main aims behind this event is to get a dialogue going between the academic and commercial sectors.
YouTube Preview Image

Roland Harwood demonstrates how the principles of open innovation are being applied to business.
YouTube Preview Image

Tim Fernando tells us about the Molly mobile web apps project and invites more people to get involved.
YouTube Preview Image

Stephen Walli explains that as open source projects get more mature, they need to manage their intellectual property more professionally.
YouTube Preview Image

OSS Watch Open Source Junction, Oxford, 28–29 March 2011

This guest post was written by Michelle Pauli, who also wrote the live blog at Open Source Junction.

‘More people pooling more resources in new ways is the history of civilisation’
Howard Rheingold

Open source software features, in some form, in just about every mobile device. This has created huge opportunities for innovation, communication and collaboration, and there is wide interest in mobile apps in the developer, consumer and business world. Yet, so far, there have been few attempts to bring together commercial and academic developers working on mobile apps in order to build partnerships based on lessons learned from open source development.

Open Source Junction, with its goal of building a sustainable community of stakeholders interested in mobile technologies, did just that. The first in a series of planned events, this two-day meeting focusing on cross-platform mobile apps gathered participants from all sectors to not only discuss innovation and collaboration but also take the first steps towards making it happen.

Open innovation

The 21st-century model of an organisation is ‘default to open’, declared Roland Harwood of 100% Open, citing Wikileaks as a topical example. Setting the scene for the networking elements of the event, he explained that open innovation is less about the ‘what’ than the ‘who’. It recognises that not all the smartest people work for us, so we need to move from the conceptual position that value lies in what we hold in our heads to the understanding that value lies in who we have around us. Or, as 100% Open put it, ‘innovating with partners by sharing the risks and rewards’.

Quoting the writer JG Ballard, Roland suggested that ‘the future reveals itself through the peripheral’ and said that we all need to be better at spotting what’s coming from outside our own sector. ‘Talk to lots of people and don’t stay in your own bubbles,’ he urged.

He had some powerful examples of companies that had opened up and reaped the rewards. These ranged from Lego’s inspired tolerance of copyright infringement that has made its Mindstorms range such a success, to Local Motors, a car sales company where customers have a hand in building the cars (think ‘beer and welding evenings’). He also namechecked Mozilla and Android to demonstrate that open source is mainstream business now.

A slight note of cynicism entered the discussion when Roland was asked if, with some of the ‘customer-led innovation projects’ he described, there was an element of companies trying to get customers to do their marketing work for them. ‘It’s a fine line,’ he admitted. ‘But it is also possible to have a more two-way relationship with customers so that it is not just a one-way street based on selling.’

In any case, with open innovation, coming up with ideas is rarely the problem. The hard work lies in making them happen and the challenge is to not only recognise a good idea (which is crucial at the start of the process) but also to recognise the effort involved in taking it forward.

Culture clash?

One of the reasons why implementing a good idea can be hard work comes down to clashes of cultures. There can be inertia and distrust between innovators and corporate bodies and collaboration can be perceived as risky. Roland described the ‘airlock solution’ that his organisation has pioneered to reassure both parties that ideas can be discussed in a confidential and ‘safe’ space.

Gabriel Hanganu, community development manager at OSS Watch, brought the issue home to the particular audience at Open Source Junction by focusing in on academic/business partnerships. He cited some fascinating surveys, including one conducted among UK academics by the Advanced Institute of Management Research, which found that academics are five times more likely to be entrepreneurial than the general public.

Another, a 2010 survey by UK Innovation Research Centre, found that most academics engage with industry to further their research. They are also interested in the impact of their research – its practical applications. Few academics engage with industry for purely financial gain and, increasingly, they are looking to build research networks.

On the industry side, there is a general distrust of academic business ability: it is felt that academics cannot, and do not want to, conduct outsourced research delivered in short timeframes. But, said Gabriel, industry needs to accept universities as equal partners, valued for their strengths.

For Gabriel, the key is practice-led transformation: it is not enough just to change perception of each other’s sector or have policies to work towards a common goal – you need open development to create the change from within.

An example of this kind of creative partnership in action came from the University of Oxford’s John Lyle, with his presentation on Webinos. This is a European Union project to produce a cross-device runtime environment for web applications. The idea is that fragmentation increases when you move from mobile to TV, laptops, navigation devices, etc. – at the moment, you can’t play a game on your mobile, walk into your house and seamlessly transfer your playing experience to your TV, for example. Webinos aims to resolve this by delivering an open web platform to allow apps to run across mobile, home media, PC and in-car devices.

Some hard questions were asked about how similar Webinos is to other projects around open web apps and the feasibility of trying to generalise a user interface, but the really exciting thing about Webinos is its success in bringing together a wide, pan-European, cross-sector consortium. It consists of 22 founding members from nine countries and the industrial partners include Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Deutsche Telecom and BMW.

As well as Webinos’s founding partnership, John said that the project is committed to creating ‘a worldwide open source community driving and using the results’.

How will that be achieved? Although 15% of Webinos’s funding has been earmarked for community-building, John was warned by Gabriel that ‘in our experience people talk a lot about building community but not a lot happens until the end, when funding has run out and it’s all unsustainable. At OSS Watch we advise people to think about sustainability right from the start.’

Community-building

So, given that the aim of Open Source Junction is to build a community, what does that mean and how can it be done?

Ross Gardler, manager of OSS Watch and vice-president of community development at the Apache Software Foundation, tackled the topic head on and pinpointed the importance of a governance model: it is the structure that underpins how decisions are made, who makes them and how; conflict resolution and sustainability.

There are two extremes of open source governance: benevolent dictatorship and meritocracy, with the main difference showing up in how conflicts are resolved. Benevolent dictatorship requires ‘genius’, including very strong interpersonal skills; meritocracies do not have that problem, but they can stagnate if not managed well.

But, whichever you go for, said Ross, ‘it is extremely hard to build a community. So get on with building it and stop agonising about it!’

According to Stephen Walli, technical director of the Outercurve Foundation, the ‘campfire rule’ is that we’ve understood communities ‘since you had a campfire and I wanted to sit beside it’ and so open source communities are nothing new. But, again, the governance system needs to be resolved early on.

It is also crucial to make it as simple as possible for people to get involved: ‘The magic can happen on day one but you have to tell people what you want and how they can do it – you have to make it easy for them,’ he said.

Businesses often look to foundations as IP packagers and liability firewalls so they can grow their community more easily. The nine biggest open source projects in the world are based in foundations, Stephen added.

Sander van der Waal of OSS Watch offered some guidance on easing the open development process and advised that there are two essential collaboration tools: information and communication. A good issue-tracker system is crucial to both of these, along with a functioning mailing list.

The positive impact that successful community-building can offer was amply demonstrated by Scott Wilson from CETIS at the University of Bolton. He described how the Wookie widget project started out as a tiny deliverable worked on by a small number of people from one organisation funded from one source for a fixed time. Thanks to its entry into the Apache Incubator, it is now a viable, sustainable piece of open source software and the result is better software than they could have created alone, more interesting research opportunities, far greater impact and a wealth of new partnerships. It has even made money, and did so quickly.

But what can also damage a community beyond repair? Filthy lucre, said Ross. ‘Money ruins everything! Do not have money inside your community! It does not have any place there. It has to be an even playing field. If someone can buy influence then your community is broken,’ he emphasised.

Business sense

While money may cause problems within the governance of a community, it’s also the reason that open source communities need a business model to be sustainable.

Nick Allott, founder of NquiringMinds, raised some eyebrows in the audience with his claim that ‘code is a liability not an asset’, because, as Ross concurred, maintaining software costs money. ‘You have to account for that even if it is open source,’ he said. ‘Someone has to fix the bugs and get the servers back up and all sorts of things and that costs money. You have to generate some money and so someone somewhere has to have a business model. It might be to make money or it might be to reduce costs. If you do not do that then you will fail.’

What kinds of business models are out there? Quite a few, it seems. Potential business models include advertising, dual licensing and packaging for hardware and services (such as warranties, support or customisations). In the mobile app space, people are making money from app sales, upgrades and in-app sales, advertising and server-side revenue. However, the mobile app market is too young for anyone to really know the future – we don’t know what will be commoditised and what the healthy revenue streams will be in five years.

Nick took a look at some of the murkier methods used by bigger business in the open source space, based on growing the ecosystem, controlling the ecosystem and devaluing competitors’ assets. ‘Open source is not always nice and friendly,’ he warned. ‘There are ways to make revenue from open source, but the big players play a different game – to reduce costs and take out competition. Open source can have profound ecosystem effects: you can kill business overnight.’

Of course, there can also be partnerships that are not based on profit. Iris Lapinski of the educational charity Apps for Good offered an inspiring take on collaborative mobile app development with Transit. It’s a Bengali translation app that came out of a course run in Tower Hamlets with a group of girls who realised that there was a problem with communication between their English-speaking teachers and Bengali-speaking parents. Apps for Good brings in experts, from business executives to designers and developers, to work with the young mobile entrepreneurs on a voluntary basis.

Native v web…

Transit will be a native app, unlike most of the apps featured in case studies during the event. The native app v web app dilemma was a thread running through many discussions.

According to Tim Fernando from Oxford University Computing Services, who spoke about the very neat Mobile Oxford app and its associated Molly open source project, ‘If you are working in education, native apps are quite a dangerous route to go down because of renewing code each year, app store commitments and so on.’

App store terms and conditions are certainly an issue for open source developers. However, when asked ‘Are app stores evil?’, Rowan Wilson of OSS Watch took a measured line.

‘They are not evil by default – arguably Maemo repositories were the first app stores,’ he said. ‘The concept itself is not necessarily undermining to open source. Where they are not the sole channel of distribution the problems are significantly reduced. But they do introduce a new form of fragmentation and it can mean that you do not necessarily look outside the one marketplace you see when you get your device.’

Despite the appeal for developers of the web app over the native app, it was also recognised that apps for the iPhone appeal as a ‘shiny new thing’ to vice-chancellors.

Mike Jones from the University of Bristol, whose MyMobileBristol web app provides time- and location-sensitive information for students (such as the nearest available computer terminal and the next bus to the halls of residence), commented that ‘people ask “is it on the app store?”’ and it doesn’t need to be but they think that to access something it has to be on the app store. There are also people in the university who worry that the university does not have a brand presence on the app store.’

Where next?

One of the most important elements of the event was the ‘speed dating’ session, in which participants introduced themselves to each other and sought synergies between skills and needs and projects. It was the first step in developing the nascent Open Source Junction community and a number of potential partnerships were identified immediately.

In the closing session, OSS Watch’s Gabriel Hanganu identified three key areas for the future of Open Source Junction – open development, sustainability and marketing – and said that ‘depending on how these are addressed, the community will live or die’. Given the enthusiastic response to the event and the firm prospect of future collaboration, the community’s life force is already looking strong.

If you enjoyed reading this report, you may also like to see Michelle’s mini-interviews with some of the attendees.

Further reading

Links:

Open Source Junction blog (including live blog, slides and photos)
Programme and speaker bios

100% Open
Apps for Good
Mobile Oxford
MyMobileBristol
NquiringMinds
Outercurve Foundation
Webinos

Further information from OSS Watch:

App stores and openness
Free and open source software in mobile devices
Open innovation in software
How to build an open source community
Roles in open source projects
Wookie: a case study in sustainability

Can’t make it to Open Source Junction? We are live-blogging

Open Source Junction: Cross-platform mobile apps (Trinity College, Oxford, 29-30 March 2011) is almost upon us. There’s still time to register (registration closes on 24 March), but if you can’t make it, keep up with all the action by following us on the #osjmob11 twitter tag. We will also be live-blogging proceedings throughout both days of the event, at:

Live blog day 1

Live blog day 2

All social media activity, including live-blogging, will be available via the Open Source Junction blog.

Governance for growth: how a governance model can benefit your open source project

This guest post was written by Mark Webb, research scientist at the Met Office.

I work at the Met Office Hadley Centre and part of my job is to evaluate the representation of clouds in the computer models which we use for climate predictions.

One way in which we do this is to compare the clouds simulated by the models with observations of clouds from satellite instruments in orbit around the Earth. Unfortunately this process is complicated by the fact that satellites do not have a perfect view of all clouds. For example, low-level clouds are often not visible from space because of other clouds above them.

For this reason, we use satellite instrument ’simulators’, which are computer codes designed to simulate what a satellite would see if it were observing our climate model. Simulator outputs can then be compared with observed satellite products in a quantitative way. This overcomes the ‘apples and oranges’ problem of comparing climate model clouds on all levels with observed clouds with some low-level clouds missing.

A number of simulators have been developed over the years, for a range of satellite instruments. These include operational weather satellites, which make ‘passive’ measurements of energy radiating from the Earth at infra-red and visible frequencies. More recently the approach has been extended to include new active instruments – for example, a cloud-profiling RADAR which analyses the time and intensity of a return from a pulse of radio waves sent into the atmosphere from the satellite.

I co-chair the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP), and as part of this I have been involved in an international effort to develop a software package which will bundle different simulators together and provide a consistent interface. This package is the CFMIP Observation Simulator Package (COSP). COSP had its first production release earlier this year, and is now being implemented in a number of climate models around the globe as part of the CFMIP.

COSP currently runs to about 15,000 lines of FORTRAN code, contributed by a number of academic and government organisations around the globe. The COSP glue layer and all but one of the instrument modules are available under a BSD licence. Although we liked to think of the project as being quite open, until recently we have had no formal governance model, and have been running the project under an informal form of benevolent dictatorship.

This all changed following a few conversations with Steve Lee of OSS Watch (who I know socially). Steve outlined a number of benefits to having a formal governance model. The first benefit that struck me was that a governance model would lay out clearly a number of roles and responsibilities which could encourage those who may not want to develop code to contribute in other ways, e.g. by testing, improving documentation, or helping with user queries. The other is that it lays out a clear decision-making process.

About the same time, our group of developers were discussing the possibility of securing some funding to employ someone to take responsibility for developing and improving the code. It seemed to us that a governance model would provide a useful foundation for any bids for funding, and would ensure that control of the project remained with those who have contributed over the years.

We found the OSS Watch information on governance models very useful for this. We had considerable debate about whether to move to the benevolent dictator or meritocratic governance model, but we eventually agreed that we would adopt the meritocratic model. We have now formed our Project Management Committee (all developers were invited) and appointed two co-chairs. We will be having our first teleconference to discuss the future of COSP in a couple of weeks.

Already I am seeing evidence of more shared responsibility for decision-making on the project, and I am looking forward to seeing the project grow, knowing that we now have a process in place for making decisions – hopefully one which will scale well as the project grows. I’m very grateful to Steve Lee and OSS Watch for the support that they have given – I doubt we would have made this transition without them.

Fixing the Web with the help of the open source community

This guest post was written by Dr Gail Bradbrook, who works for Citizens Online, a charity that promotes digital inclusion.

Fix the Web is, in the jargon of the day, a crowd-sourcing project with the aim of changing the face of web accessibility. It is led by Citizens Online, the national charity I work for. A couple of years ago, we did some work with the EC on their strategy for digital inclusion (the use of technology by disadvantaged people).

At a European level, the progress on ensuring that all disabled people have a good internet experience was shockingly bad. EU countries signed up to a Riga target in 2006, which said that by 2010 all public sector websites should be accessible. I don’t think they have (dared!) measure it this year. In 2007 it had improved by only 2%, so they are moving their target to 2015.

We are probably at about 40% in the UK, according to Socitm research, but of course that is just the public sector. The private sector is not as ‘good’ and there is clearly still a long way to go. Using the latest (2008) WCAG2.0 standards (the basis of the recently launched BS8878) would seriously diminish (to nearly zero!) the number of accessible sites. What struck me was that the attempts to rectify this situation were very top-down, useful, but nonetheless limited attempts to draw up standards and promote them, build business cases, etc.

I asked myself where the voice of the average disabled person was in this and what role social media and ‘good geekery’ could play? (I’m a self-confessed ‘Geek Groupie’ at Stroud’s Barcamp!). Fix the Web was born out of those considerations and discussions with stakeholders. We got some funding from the Nominet Trust to take it forwards. I was always certain that the open source community would be central to the success of the project (though I had to stop referring to you good folks as ‘hactivists’ because people thought I was proposing something illegal!).

The simple idea is that we want to make reporting inaccessible websites as easy as possible for disabled people. They can highlight any problems they are having in less than 60 seconds, then quickly move on, without the burden of finding the right person to contact, and then constructing a considered email or filling out a form (which may finish with an inaccessible CAPTCHA!).

People can choose from a few options when reporting a problem: using a form on the site (http://www.fixtheweb.net), via twitter (#fixtheweb #fail, url and the problem) or by emailing post@fixtheweb.net. However, my ‘dream’ was a clickable toolbar that would capture the website details and provide the easiest option. Steve Lee from Full Measure brokered an introduction – as part of his OSS Watch support activities provided to ATBar – to the folks at Southampton University who are developing the ATbar (formerly funded by TechDis). The development team of Sebastian Skuse, Dr Mike Wald and E A Draffan from the Learning Societies Lab at Southampton, have collaborated with Fix the Web to create a special Fix the Web button on the toolbar, not only making the reporting process as fast as possible, but also opening up the project to the 2 million current users of the toolbar.

The idea of the toolbar has also been supported by JISC-funded OSS Watch, which provides advice on the use, development and licensing of open source software. The team aims to build a community around the project and take it forward through its recently awarded JISC REALISE project. Over the last five months, there have been over 1.8 million ‘toolbar hits’ on the ATBar.

The underlying ethos of Fix the Web is about raising awareness across the spectrum of understanding on this issue. So those who are clueless will get to hear about it, those who forget to consider it will find it further forwards in their thinking, those who know something will learn more, etc. And it is about empathising with people and the barriers they face, whether in knowledge or power or current budgets, and working with them, rather than naming and shaming.

It would be great to get more open source folks involved in the project. You don’t need to be an expert in web accessibility to join in, but you may improve your knowledge by doing so. Volunteering takes place online, in your own time. This is very much about a lot of people doing a little and over time collectively helping to Fix the Web we all love.

Creativity, divergent thinking and collaboration

In my last blog post, I mentioned an article by Stephen Sackur, in which he suggests that most of us, in our youth, have the capacity to be innovators and free thinkers, but that we learn at an early age that it’s easier to conform than to rebel. Since then, I’ve been thinking about why and how this happens.

I found some interesting answers, and further food for thought, in the entertaining and wonderfully illustrated animated version of ‘Changing paradigms’ by creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson. He maintains that the current system of education was designed and structured for a different age, in the interests of, and in the image of, industrialism; a production-line mentality that aims for standardisation. Accordingly, schools train children to think in convergent ways – to find one, correct, answer. As a result, the innate capacity that all children have for divergent thinking deteriorates as they become educated.

Divergent thinking shouldn’t be confused with creativity. Sir Ken defines creativity as having original ideas that have value, while divergent thinking is the ability to interpret questions in different ways and to see lots of possible answers; you could call it lateral thinking.

Innovation, I think, requires both creativity and divergent thinking. Open innovation – the sharing of inventions and/or innovations across organisational boundaries – also requires collaboration. This is another topic explored by Sir Ken: ‘most great learning happens in groups’ and ‘collaboration is the stuff of growth’, he enthuses. Sadly, however, collaboration is also not encouraged by the current education system: in school, it’s called copying, and copying is cheating!

In my last post, I asked how we, as parents, can help our children to become free thinkers and innovators. Given that everything they do at school seems to encourage the exact opposite, we have our work cut out for us.

The spirit of innovation

In his article ‘The secrets of changing the world‘, Stephen Sackur explores the characteristics that he believes unite genuine innovators. To identify the common qualities that ’seem to separate us sheep from the innovative goats’, he draws on interviews he has conducted over the years with some of the world’s great innovators, in spheres as diverse as business, science and art:

- an indestructible will
- passion beyond reason
- outrageous optimism
- a super-sized ego
- the rebel spirit

This got me thinking about how I might expand the list – you could add creative thinking and self-discipline, for example – and about people I know who possess these traits, and how they use them. But what I found most thought-provoking, not to mention disturbing, about Sackur’s article is the suggestion that ‘most of us, in our youth, have the capacity to be innovators, free-thinkers, resolute refuseniks when it comes to accepting the status quo’, but that we ‘figure out from an early age that it’s easier to conform than rebel’. If this is true, what can we, as parents, do to keep that spirit alive without creating monsters?

But that’s a debate for another day. Here at OSS Watch, one of the ways in which we foster the innovative spirit is by promoting open innovation. Open innovation is a specific form of innovation, which recognises that in the modern world no single organisation has a monopoly on invention. Accordingly, it advocates the sharing of inventions and/or innovations across organisational boundaries, by such means as licensing, joint ventures and spin-offs.

Open innovation was one of the themes we explored at TransferSummit. If you missed it, catch up by reading Sam Jordison’s blog post on the innovation track, or his report on the whole event. You can also find out more about open innovation in our briefing document ‘Open source and open innovation‘.

Contributing to an open source project

You don’t have to be a software developer to contribute to an open source project – there are all sorts of ways you can get involved, whether you are experienced or a newcomer, technically minded or otherwise inclined. In our forthcoming briefing note (update: now published and called Roles in open source projects), we identify and describe just some of the other roles you could fulfil:

  • writing documentation
  • translating
  • supplying graphics and artwork
  • providing user support
  • providing feedback on the user experience
  • assisting with testing and quality assurance
  • evangelising about the project and marketing
  • providing monetary donations and developer support

The exact roles and mechanisms for contributing will be described in an individual project’s governance document, and will vary between projects. But all open source projects welcome contributions and attempt to make the process as easy as possible. The Ubuntu project website, for example, gives very clear guidelines on contributing, explaining exactly how to get involved in whichever aspect of the project interests you.

Participating in an open source software community may seem an intimidating prospect at first, but remember that the community is ultimately made up of people, and those people are all working towards a common goal. Taking the time to plan your involvement by consulting the project’s website and getting to know the community will smooth the path to a successful and fulfilling collaboration.

Top tips for a successful open source project

Damien Katz, whose Apache CouchDB recently hit 1.0, provides some excellent tips on creating a successful open source project in his blog Getting your open source project to 1.0. Drawn from five years’ experience, the tips include general advice interwoven with examples from the project. He begins with the fundamental question, Why?, explaining that a successful project needs a reason for being – a clear idea of what problem it solves – and you need to figure this out and explain it.

Almost as important as knowing what you are is knowing what you’re not: ‘Stating clearly what your project isn’t trying to do or be helps make it much easier to explain what you can’t implement or change …. and to focus on what you actually are.’ Next, he advises, ‘don’t expect to attract anyone to your project until you have a substantial amount of working code that isn’t a big ball of spaghetti’. Code comes first, but don’t try to do everything (well), as you’ll probably never actually release anything: ‘You’ll need to pick a few things that you do really well and execute on those things.’

On the subject of community, Katz encourages you to ‘make sure the people who show a strong desire to contribute aren’t ignored, and feel like their efforts will eventually amount to something’. But bear in mind, he warns, that community is often incompetent. You will sometimes need to hurt people’s feelings for the sake of the project because ‘the quality of the community is more important than its absolute size’. ‘Our committers,’ he stresses, ‘are our first line of defence against poor code and design.’

In the end, though, it’s up to you to use your brain and ‘figure out what’s actually important to you, your project and its community … Projects can’t follow cookie cutter rules.’

One tip that could be added to this list is to contact OSS Watch. We can help you create a successful open source project by providing advice every step of the way. In addition, our briefing documents offer invaluable information on everything a new project needs to consider, including governance models, sustainability, how to build an open source community and licensing.