Mike Loukides over at O’Reilly Radar has an article about open-source metrics and how to quantify the open-source model. He writes:
Dana Blankenhorn’srecent ZDNet blog points to Accenture’s “hockey stick for open source” and notes that while 69 percent of the companies Accenture surveyed plan to increase their open source investment in the next year, only 29 percent plan to contribute back to the open source community. That sounds very plausible. But is it a problem? I’m not so sure.
First, I don’t think “all take and no give” is a failure. Or even a problem. If you’re giving, you shouldn’t be surprised if people take. If you’re taking something that’s been freely given, you shouldn’t feel obliged to give back. If you do, that’s great. And if you’re a giver, you should be glad that people are taking, whether or not you’re getting something back in return.
Second, “how many companies plan to contribute” isn’t the right metric. One of the things I’ve learned from my involvement in industry is that the most successful and effective groups are small. The right metric is “are there enough contributors to move the project forward?” For the key projects (like Apache), clearly the answer is “yes.” “Enough” is much more important than “how many.” The last thing we need are projects that slow to a crawl because of the bloated development-by-committee that characterizes many corporate environments.
Clearly, he’s talking here about open-source software, but the ideas are bigger than that, and can be applied to hardware just as easily. As OSH continues to grow, using the right metrics to provide meaningful insight will become more important, particularly for larger collaborative projects.
Adafruit publishes a wide range of writing and video content, including interviews and reporting on the maker market and the wider technology world. Our standards page is intended as a guide to best practices that Adafruit uses, as well as an outline of the ethical standards Adafruit aspires to. While Adafruit is not an independent journalistic institution, Adafruit strives to be a fair, informative, and positive voice within the community – check it out here: adafruit.com/editorialstandards
Stop breadboarding and soldering – start making immediately! Adafruit’s Circuit Playground is jam-packed with LEDs, sensors, buttons, alligator clip pads and more. Build projects with Circuit Playground in a few minutes with the drag-and-drop MakeCode programming site, learn computer science using the CS Discoveries class on code.org, jump into CircuitPython to learn Python and hardware together, TinyGO, or even use the Arduino IDE. Circuit Playground Express is the newest and best Circuit Playground board, with support for CircuitPython, MakeCode, and Arduino. It has a powerful processor, 10 NeoPixels, mini speaker, InfraRed receive and transmit, two buttons, a switch, 14 alligator clip pads, and lots of sensors: capacitive touch, IR proximity, temperature, light, motion and sound. A whole wide world of electronics and coding is waiting for you, and it fits in the palm of your hand.
Have an amazing project to share? The Electronics Show and Tell is every Wednesday at 7pm ET! To join, head over to YouTube and check out the show’s live chat – we’ll post the link there.
Get the only spam-free daily newsletter about wearables, running a "maker business", electronic tips and more! Subscribe at AdafruitDaily.com !
I think the author misunderstands two things:
First, Open Source Software took off with the ‘net precisely because a small group of authors could service a disproportionately large audience. It is a strength, not a weakness, that one author can have a million users.
Second, there is a concept in marketing and innovation (read “The Innovators’ Dilemma” by Christensen) of a “value network.” It means (among other things) that users have great value just as users. They empower creators by just being there. And of course if they rise to evangelism it goes beyond that. The users then become active extenders of the value network.