There are a lot of useful documents available on how to get an open source project up and running. This short briefing note from Ross Gardler at OSS Watch is excellent: Essential tools for running a community-led project. Ross has years of experience in such projects, notably those that are part of The Apache Software Foundation. He has boiled down some of that experience here into just the nuggets of pure gold (as I mix my metaphors egregiously).

One of the things that I think Ross gets completely right is his stance on communications. He writes:

A second communication channel should only be created when the traffic on your first channel is sufficiently high to justify the split.

Absolutely! Nothing more than is necessary. Best to just head over now and get Ross’ take on these things. And while you are there, why not visit some of the other fabulous resources that OSS Watch has to offer.

When I begin investigating a new software project, one of the first things I do is explore the archives of the mailing lists. They are treasure-troves of information about the project and its development community. As such, they naturally excite the interest of academics bemused by the open source phenomenon. But my interests are entirely pragmatic.

First, I want to know whether the archives of the list are public. Is this an open project or isn’t it?

Next, I want to see the pace of discussion on the development list. Are there frequent exchanges between the developers? And what is the nature of these exchanges? Do the developers appear to be thinking through the development process on the list itself? Or is this merely a platform for pronouncements? If the latter, then I begin to suspect that the real development list is a private one somewhere else. Again, is this an open project or isn’t it?

How do the people on the development list respond to questions? How do they respond to suggestions? How do they respond to contributions?

My interest is not academic. I want to know how I am likely to be treated in this community. The world is full of open source projects which might value a bit of my time. I want to know whether this is one of them, or whether I should move on.

Of course the list archive is also a narrative history. It has characters who shape the narrative arc. It may be punctuated by events or even conflict. In the best examples, the archive strips away the personalities of the contributors until the code itself becomes the character of interest, undergoing change, facing its own trials.

Software development projects, of course, are not alone in making best advantage of public archives of mailing lists. Take the license-discuss list of the Open Source Initiative, for example. Delving into the archive there can be exhilarating as figures of legend appear, and inevitably appear all too human.

In an age of blogs and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and podcasts, I suppose that public archives of email mailing lists sounds a bit 20th century. Possibly. But for the foreseeable future they will continue to be a defining feature of open source projects.

Oh, and one other thing.

Everyone remembers the first time they post to a public open source development list. I know I do 🙂

How open is your project? It’s a question that should be asked of any open source software development project. It goes without saying that the software being distributed in such a project has an open source licence. That ensures that the software itself is open. What about the project? What about the way the code gets developed?

Sometimes I tell people that the licence is the thing. Without an open source licence, it’s just not open source software. And that’s true. But it’s not enough.

Pia Waugh made just this point to me when I met up with her last week. Amongst a million other things she does, Pia also works for ASK-OSS, the Australian equivalent of OSS Watch. She argues that without open communities, open content, and open standards, open source software is stunted. More and more I begin to see her point.

Yet being open is hard sometimes.

It takes practice. Moreover it admits of degrees and may need to be approached one step at a time. A good start is to set up an open development discussion list. But if you do, treat it with respect. Once you’ve got such a list, then all development communication needs to take place on it.

Either the project is open and this open development discussion list reflects that, or its openness is a sham.