Sharing Nicely

One characteristic of open source or free software development processes is to release code early (but not too early) and often. This allows the community of users, testers, and contributors to review progress – identify errors and try out features early on so things can still be changed before a lot of time was invested.

I am currently working on an article about “sharing nicely” for the Design Indaba magazine and trying to think through the characteristics of “open” processes. It’s in the early stages and maybe a bit theoretical, but I thought I’d post them here before they are more fully developed – hoping that they spark a response or some feedback (or more questions). Your thoughts would be much appreciated – also by email if you don’t want to post a comment on the blog (phi.schmidt at gmail dot com).

The big argument that I am trying to develop is that “open” provides a new narrative to what is happening in many spheres of our societies – and why that is a good thing.

Background

Is “open” new? No, it’s an old idea that we can trace back to gift societies (Joi Ito speaks more about gifting our conversation about altruism – podcast available), pre-industrialisation governance of shared resources, to industrial innovation processes in the early 1800s, or the way that culture has evolved by remixing earlier work. However, much of this seems to have been forgotten and the emphasis on community and sharing replaced by a preference on rewarding individual achievements. So much so, that today “open” seems like a revolutionary new idea.

Why is “open” making a return? If “open” is an old idea and yet it is experiencing this new wave of enthusiasm – why is that the case? Yochai Benkler argues eloquently that affordable computers and networking have given access to the tools of innovation and production to a much larger group of people. So, it has something to do with technology and our ability to share ideas much faster, more cheaply and at an unprecedented scale.

Identifying “open”

When trying to understand what “open” means, a good starting point are the four “freedoms” defined by Richard Stallman, which enable free software and open source software processes (and translate nicely to open content). They are the freedoms to use the softweare, to study it, to improve it, and to distribute it. In our talk at Open Everything Cape Town Mark Surman and I mentioned that in addition to the four freedoms, there are other characteristics (transparent, participatory, permeable, and malleable) that are important when looking at open processes rather than software or content. [Disclaimer: the first iteration of this was really Mark's doing rather than mine]. It turns out that the two sets of characteristics work really well together can be mapped against software and content on one hand and processes on the other.

Software / Content -> Processes
Use / Share -> Permeable
Study -> Transparent
Remix -> Malleable

Values – There are values embedded both in these characteristics and in peoples’ decision to contribute to open processes. However, one interesting thing about “open” is that people who find themselves using very similar “open” mechanisms come at it from fundamentally different directions. It
brings together people who have otherwise very different values – but
who can agree on “open” as the most effective way of achieving
something they all want as individuals.

Open? So what?

If the above are characteristics that are needed to enable “open”, then what are some of the results of applying them?

Pragmatic – Open projects try to solve problems. While they might be steeped in big philosophies, they often start with a few people trying to create something that they need, and realising that it’s easier or more fun to do it together with others. Since the people are often the ones that know the problem very well (often it’s their own problem) they are the best people to address it.

Participation is possible free of charge (not of cost) – It is not necssary, but in most open projects participation is unpaid and that has some positive effects. One good thing about unpaid contributions is that the people only contribute if they truly care. There are many different reasons to care, and some involve money.

Sharing is caring – As a result of all this is that open processes exhibit very high levels of “engagement” and identification as well as trust. This is special and something that closed project and firms are working very hard to achieve. In the “open” world, this comes naturally.

Questions

So, all this sounds great, but there remain questions that I don’t have good answers to. For example, is “open” as we look at it today a result of surplus time and money that our economies have produced, and if yes, then how does “open” work in societies and countries that have less surplus of this kind? My friend Rishab Ghosh has an interesting theory that one reason that Germany has such a large open source software community is that Germans spend more time in Universities (the systems is being overhauled, but a standard German Diplom takes between 4 – 8 years to complete and it is not uncommon for lawyers or doctors to spend 10 years or more studying). Since students in Germany are supported by the Government their contribution to open projects is subsidized through everyone’s taxes. In Africa, few students have the luxury of having financial support like this.

When does open work and when doesn’t it? For “open” to work there has to be some value in doing things together. Not all things have to be done with others, or are necessarily suitable for doing them together (think poems), but there is a huge range of examples where “open” works.