On 02/28/2013 11:03 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 18:58, "Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
> I pushed this through moderation because Pete wasn't a list member,
> he's now added as being allowed to post. I'm not sure about Jason,
> so I'm including you in the Cc:.
> On 02/28/2013 09:43 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>> I'm confused about the statement:
>> "When we talk about community in the The Open Source Way, we mean
>> the community of contributors who are a superset to all other
>> I can't see how the community of contributors is a superset of
>> all the other groups listed. There are certainly an intersections
>> between the various groups, but it would be perfectly possible to
>> contribute towards something without using it, or evangelise
>> something without contributing to it. And of course very possible
>> to like something without contributing anything to it.
>> Can anyone clarify what this statement is supposed to mean?
>> I would like to reuse this terminology, but right now I can't
>> understand it, and without understanding it, I can't use it ;-)
> And in clarifying we may find that it needs modifying, which is
We can fix this on the wiki, which is really the canonical source for
the book. The wiki in fact has several changes that are not in the book,
I don't currently have any plans for an update, but it might be a good
> The intention in that statement is to say something like,
> people use the term community to refer to all sorts of things. When
> we say 'community' in this book, we're focusing on the people who -
> by their work as a community - enable all the other communities to
> happen through tools, processes, or purpose."
Yeah, that is what I term "community of contributors" or for short,
That's a fair point, it's simply the contributors.
> Superset may be the wrong word, therefore. Super-enablers? :)
For me a superset is a very specific thing - a mathematical
relationship from set theory.
Yeah, and my usage shows my sloppy liberal arts major thinking. :)
I did draw a picture in my mind of contributors as surrounding all
others in terms of enabling them (superset-like), but you are accurate
in saying that it really doesn't hold conceptually with the real meaning
How about just calling them enablers?
How about this:
"When we talk about community in the The Open Source Way, we mean the
community of contributors who are enablers for all other communities.
The ones who, by getting things done, make it possible for many, many
more to get much, much more done."
> The purpose of the book is to help people understand the methods
> that have worked to make successful communities of contributors
> (which are also communities of practice.) Contributor communities
> are often the smallest percentage of the overall people interested
> in a technology, project, etc. There are many people who use and
> are passionate about a technology, but for an open source project,
> there generally must be contributors for all the rest to happen.
> (Yes, there can be people evangelizing and using tech that is not
> actively maintained, but that is the exception and out of scope for
> the book (unless someone is trying to revitalized contributors.))
For JBoss we are calling the community of contributors "contributors"
and the users "application developers", which will inevitably get
shortened to "developers". This is a bit complex, but users is a
funny term when your audience are developers.
Understood, as many people say "developer" to mean the contributors. I
think your usage is fine, though, and consistency (plus explanation)
Any suggestions for how to improve this? Perhaps we could cover this
in the book, then I can just refer out?
Can you use the wiki as a reference, or do you want/need the book to be
rebuilt with the change?
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41