Subject: Re: Choardic Commons
From: Scott Capdevielle <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:01:34 -0700

actually I am quite familiar with SourceXChange.  I think I was a pretty 
early participant and was intrigued by the approach. I also am familiar 
with your work on Apache and CollabNet and appreciate your 
contributions.  From what I learned from people involved (in 
SourceXChange) it was axed for a number of reasons, perhaps you might 
shed some light on the details.  The approach I have been studying is 
subtly different but shares a lot of the same goals.  What I have 
learned is that, while very successful, many of the participants in the 
open source world are not fully aware of the protocols that are in place 
and that without them that chaos would ensue.  I, and others in the 
field, beleive it is related to chaos and complexity.  Where, and I am 
simplifying here,  the difference is simply the underlying behavioral 
protocols. Wihtout them, you have chaos. With them, complexity emerges.

There is ample research, I have read only a fragment, that suggests that 
furthering the experimentation with such protocols would lead to greater 
ability for communities to collaborate.  

I mentioned some research by Dr Miles and found the paper. It is called 
"Understanding Knowledge Activists Successes and Failures" and is a 
great read for people interested in the underlying reasons for success 
in collaboration in general.  Here is a link to an overview (thanks Jack!).  I will try 
to get an electronic copy for anyone who is interested.


>On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Scott Capdevielle wrote:
>>We have postulated that by "discovering", not imposing, some additional
>>protocols, the community could actually focus its activities in a way
>>that creates very rapid innovation and enables smaller organizations to
>>form that can respond to commercial needs in a way that can in turn be
>>leveraged by the community.
>>I have toyed with concepts such as:
>>Offering money and management expertise to contributors who come up with
>>a business plan for a software service in which the intellectual capital
>>is placed in the public domain.
>>What do you think?
>Ever heard of SourceXchange?
>	Brian