Subject: Re: Nessus 3.0's failed community
From: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby@henkel-wallace.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:34:43 -0800


On Nov 29, 2005, at 12:22 , Michael Bernstein wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 12:23 -0500, Marshall W. Van Alstyne wrote:
>>
>> So, it raises a great question: What inducements, credit, benefits,
>> licensing terms etc. should firms provide to the broader developer
>> community to encourage their participation?  Beyond openness, what  
>> levers
>> do firms really have?
>
> Three that I can think of: Visibility, Engagement, and Responsiveness.
>
> Visibility: Is it obvious how the community is expected to  
> participate?
> Is there a bug/issue tracker? Mailing list? IRC channel? A wiki? A
> weblog? Version control? Are these community venues easily  
> discoverable?
> Can a technical user easily do an anonymous checkout of the code?

By the way these should be practically XOR.  That is, sometimes it's  
just too damned complicated coming up to speed on something with too  
many contact points or way too high a volume on the only mailing list.

Addressing this isn't strictly a business issue, as it applies just  
as much to a non B FSProject.  But it either way is a mix of  
marketing and customer support, and most FSPs just aren't really  
oriented that way.

None of the above is specific to Nessus; I think Larry's comments in  
that regard were right on.