Personal tools
You are here: Home Blog Community Shared Development

Community Shared Development

Let's move from calling ourselves Open Source to calling ourselves Community Shared Development.

Let's call ourselves Community Shared Development !


This post is a follow up to Matt Hamilon's post Have the vendor open source companies ruined it for the rest of us and if so what do we call ourselves now? and the various comments I have read there.

Who are we ? We are a community of individuals, business companies, public and non-profit organizations.

We collaborate and share the full development process of our system: functional and requirements analysis, coding and development, quality assurance, plus best practices for each of those.

This includes Open Source but goes further.

Seven years ago, Community Shared Development is what made me choose Plone community's CMS instead of single-dominant-vendor Open Source Nuxeo CPS. Since then, it is also what I sell to my customers.

Why Community Shared Development instead of Open Development as proposed by Dylan Jay and others ?

The word Development is a real differentiator. But, if we keep the word Open, do we really differentiate from Open Source ? I think it does not trigger enough questions.

Also, Open Development misses the community aspect. While reading Matt's post, my first reaction was that that the term Community was missing. I read in the comments that at least Jens and Wouter also think it is an important term.

Further, we need to include a term that will be harder to hijack by single-dominant-vendor Open Source systems.

Like Wouter, while reading, I came to Open Business Community Development. But this has two drawbacks. First and main, it is too long.

Second, it uses the term Business. This might feel like excluding the contributions from individuals, public or non-profit organizations. Also, it is a term that might feel suspect to some members of our community.

I then came to Community Development... which felt nice at first thought. However, while trying to explain Community Development in the text above, I found out that the word Sharing came naturally. It is a good replacement for Open. Choosing a way of calling ourselves that does not include any terms found in Open Source will trigger questions and reactions.

I am looking forward to reading your questions and reactions !

Document Actions

Comments (1) Dec 19, 2010 01:03 PM
I very much agree with having tight definition and open development is still vague.
However I've thought a lot about the word community and deliberately avoided it. A lot of people do use "community open source" to differentiate projects like us and unfortunately it has already to coopted within vendor open source. Many claim to have vibrant and collaborative communities. This normally means forums and possibly the ability to submit bugs and patches. Possibly user groups. Everyones definition of "community" is different.
Community is also something that means something to us, but not so much the customer. They are used to dealing with organisations, industries etc. Community doesn't seem to have the ring of an economic aim. You engage with communities by becoming part of one, but not buying services from them for instance.
Admittedly "open development" says nothing about how you interact with it either but it does kind of say that your development has to be open. I think the only real way to protect such a term is to trademark it and give a strict definition for it's use.
For the record, other terms I've tried out are "vendor neutral open source" and foundationware. Co-development is another word I've seen used which is good since it at least enshrines the idea of equality or at least two members. "open by rule" is another I've seen used. None are great names. Somewhere there is a really good term for businesses working togeather for a common goal that doesn't sound too hippie but perhaps we haven't thought of it yet :)