Where are all of the community advisory boards?
In retrospect, the launch of Nagios Enterprises is notable not only because of Ethan Galstad's previous stance on a commercial Nagios branch, but also because of the new company's outlined approach to integrating a for-profit entity into its ecosystem. The Nagios community advisory board has been established as a mechanism for giving various community needs and perspectives a platform on the corporate operations side. Consisting of some of the brightest members of the Nagios ecosystem, it stands to counterbalance the fact that the dynamics of a for-profit enterprise are not easily aligned with a truly open source community. The increasing viability of commercial open source vendors has served to obfuscate the complexities of starting/running a community-driven software company. Hopefully the impression of what it takes to attain open source success won't become [in tongue-in-cheek Slashdot style]:
- Release code as open source
- Wait until community gets "popular"
- Start a company offering services and support
- ???
- Profit
In actuality, not every popular/good/sticky open source effort will facilitate a viable business model. Nor should there be the expectation of otherwise. Even if the project has attained significant traction within the enterprise, like Nagios, there is no hard guarantee that there is sufficient momentum to overcome the entry barriers for a commercial operation. The open source model may do well to lube/pry open various entry points but traditional competitive dynamics still hold sway. After all, downloads don't necessarily translate into dollars [before or after starting a company] in the same way that open source economies are bigger than they might appear on the surface.
The fourth step in the facetiously diagrammed chart, above, is actually the most challenging hurdle. It entails walking the thin line drawn between commercial success and community commitment. The path of growing a company while tending to a truly open technology community is long and winding. Navigating it successfully requires that certain priorities be set at the onset and kept in place. Community should never become an obligation, rather it should be held in high regards as a capable source of strategic value. As a result the communication channels between enterprise and community should be remain bi-directional and synchronized on both ends.
That being said, I'm left pondering why community advisory boards aren't yet compulsory to doing business as a commercial open source vendor? Perhaps it seems unnecessary in the face of the popular benevolent dictator model, which espouses top-down yet egalitarian governance, and seems to meet the need of community through a central point of authority. However, one role can't effectively replace input from an entire community, especially one that's thriving. To me, establishing a community advisory board works to grant a brand of legitimacy centered on the fact that open source community is just that, real open source. If/when VC dollars start flowing into an open source enterprise it's crucial to maintain assurance that these words haven't become integrated solely as selling points and/or categorical by-words.
Frankly, every open source company needs to begin to push the concept of a community advisory board of some type. As a more complete understanding of the open source value proposition spreads, I'm gambling that a demonstrated commitment to openness is set to become mandatory. Right now, the criteria gravitates around whether the product/code is freely available under an OSI license, which is a start but one that leaves something to be desired. Eventually, an increasingly open source savvy demand-side will establish that a credible commitment to open source is, in fact, a precursor to purchasing support and services. At which point, the existence of a community advisory board will go miles towards validating the strength of any one open source brand.
Comments