Learning to fly

11 Comments Add your own

• 1.    J. A. Calvo  |  August 31st, 2009 at 10:37 am

  I think that the eBox community is great. They don’t get scared when they see the CEO. Instead of that, they get excited about receiving first-hand information.

• 2.    Ignacio Correas  |  August 31st, 2009 at 11:32 am

  Thanks for your comment. I never said that community members get scared from CEOs, but that I feared that they would mistrust any business guy. I am happy to say my fears were overcome

• 3.    Henrik Ingo  |  September 16th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

  I was used to think that in the open source world, business and community were always separated, that it was a bad idea to mix both worlds. That was the reason why I tried not to interact much with eBox community. Perhaps ill-advised, I thought that there was a natural mistrust in community members for everyone bearing a CEO title and talking business stuff. That was my main line of thought … until last week.

  Ignacio?

  Is this you speaking?

  I know MySQL is your role model, but don’t learn everything from there…

  The fallacy to use the word “community” to refer to non-paying users(such as Community version and Enterprise version) is one of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen in Open Source business ever. Even when not explicitly meaning it, it creates a mistrust in sales and business people, they start to think (subconsciously, at least) of the community as those freeloaders, or at best as the target audience for selling something. When in fact your community should be an asset, and if you’re not utilizing that asset… too bad for you. (A poll is a great start, code contributions better.)

  Then think of the opposite: So you don’t consider your paying eBox users as part of the community?

  Ok, now that you realized how wrong the above is, get prepared for lesson #2:

  Is “EBox The Company” included in “The Community”, or is “The Community” an external entity to your company?

• 4.    Ignacio Correas  |  September 17th, 2009 at 12:09 am

  I know it sounds like a different person wrote those words, but it was actually me I had heard a lot of opinions and advices against mixing business and community, and that is why I tried to handle that separation carefully. But I realized it is just rubbish

  I completely agree that considering community as an equivalent to non-paying users is wrong. I think a more correct definition of community is all those users who openly interact and contribute to the improvement of the product, independently on whether they are paying customers or not. Contributing and paying are completely independent actions.

  A closer analysis of eBox data reveals that over 10% of the partnership proposals we receive come from existing members of our community, showing that there is no such clear separation between those two worlds.

  What do you think of this definition of community? Do you think it makes more sense that just an euphemism for “non-paying users”?

• 5.    SamK  |  September 17th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  eBox communicates with the community primarily via the forum, #ebox irc channel and email lists. These seem biased towards the discussion of user technical issues of the ‘break and fix’ type. This pattern is common in the wider arena of OSS as a project is often instigated by a technical developer(s). In turn the project offering is implemented by technically inclined people in the user group who in turn communicate using the same channels.

  If the project develops a profit making business wing, people holding business development and management skills are needed to supplement the efforts of the developer(s). The primary focus of the project ‘business man’ is to develop a profitable business and as such will seek to make contacts with the budget holders rather than the technicians in a potential user group. Consequently the existing contacts within the existing project communication channels may be viewed as unsuitable.

  Currently, I make use of eBox as a non paying customer; as a result I am unaware of the communication routes employed by those who pay. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that the ‘business guy’ of a maturing product will actively seek to construct a dialogue with a paying customer. On the other hand, I have only the (default) technically focused channels outlined previously.

  In my career I have been fortunate to hold a wide range of roles:
  * Hands-on technical roles,
  * Systems design roles,
  * Strategic service management, people management, capital and operational budget management roles.

  The outcome of this is I have no reason to ‘mistrust’ the ‘business guy’; however until recently there has been only a limited opportunity to influence him.

• 6.    Ignacio Correas  |  September 19th, 2009 at 11:14 am

  Right, the channels are typically deployed to interact with the community are mainly to discuss about technical matters and about the development of the product. But maybe we could use them to open a dialog with the “business guy” too and offer the opportunity to influence him. What do you think? Do you think it would make sense in our case?

• 7.    SamK  |  September 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am

  
  …the channels are typically deployed to interact with the community are mainly to discuss about technical matters and about the development of the product. But maybe we could use them to open a dialog with the “business guy” too…
  

  NON PAYING CUSTOMERS
  Preconceptions will play a role here. The non paying customer group is an amorphous, unstructured collection of individuals. Redressing the preconceptions of such a group will not be an easy task.

  One of the most common features of an OSS project is the public forum. Routinely, this is used as the technical support mechanism for the non paying customer group. It is a role which is expected and understood by the group. Whether by design or evolution, eBox also follows this pattern. Many (most?) of the group will contact the forum primarily to access this break-and-fix mechanism.

  If you expect and provide only a technical communication channel for the dialogue between the paying customer and the ‘business guy’ offering similar facilities to a non paying customer is equitable. If a non technical communication channel is used for the former, should one also be used for the latter? Should the spirit of openness and sharing be encouraged in equal measures in both groups?

  EBOX TECHNOLOGIES
  Preconceptions within eBox Technologies will also be a factor as mentioned by Henrik Ingo.

  If the non paying customer group is seen in some way to be second class it will ultimately inhibit the success of any initiative which invites them to contribute.

  Is this regarded as a trivial task? Are you able to allocate sufficient resources and importance to it? Consider the effort put in to the partner programme.

  Is the purpose of the dialogue as clearly defined and understood as that for a paying customer? Are the benefits seen and accepted within eBox Technologies?

  Is a true dialogue wanted or is a simple inflow of ideas for product improvement sought? Consider a contribution made by a paying customer; would it pass without comment, acknowledgment or feedback? Examples can be seen in the non paying customer group. Additionally, and without being in any way contentious, no feedback was provided to respondents concerning the conclusions drawn from your initial poll. Would any feedback have been provided following Elliot’s poll or was my request for information posted before you had the opportunity to do so?

  I stumbled across this blog by pure chance. Why is it attached to the main web site of eBox Technologies under a heading of ‘Company’? It is more likely to be seen here by potential and paying customers; non paying customers will go directly to the community forum.

  
  Do you think it would make sense in our case?
  

  My earlier comments indicate this does not lend itself to an easy yes/no response. Most of the factors that will determine its success are beyond my control; this allows only generalized questions and observations to be raised. From my perspective, it desirable to have access to a decision maker.

  While posting these comments a question has formed. Is the exchange of ideas in this blog the type of dialogue you are seeking?

• 8.    SamK  |  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 am

  Correction – a word was omitted from the penultimate paragraph of post 7 making the meaning unclear.

  
  7. SamK | September 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
  [...]
  From my perspective, it desirable to have access to a decision maker.
  [...]
  

  It should read:
  From my perspective, it is desirable to have access to a decision maker.

• 9.    Ignacio Correas  |  September 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  
  If you expect and provide only a technical communication channel for the dialogue between the paying customer and the ‘business guy’ offering similar facilities to a non paying customer is equitable. If a non technical communication channel is used for the former, should one also be used for the latter? Should the spirit of openness and sharing be encouraged in equal measures in both groups?
  

  I think you have to use the most appropriate communication channels with each group of interest. As you mentioned, the first approach by a non-paying users is usually a technical related question, so no wonder the forum becomes mainly a place for break/fix support. In this case, the fact of asking questions openly is a great advantage, as the chances to find someone who can solve your problem increases exponentially with the number of forum members.

  However, potential partners or customers usually have service or business related questions and asking questions openly do not always have a clear benefit for them. Or maybe they consider the forum as a purely technical area and were there business related discussions maybe they would join the conversation openly. This could become a “chicken or egg” discussion…

  
  If the non paying customer group is seen in some way to be second class it will ultimately inhibit the success of any initiative which invites them to contribute.

  Is this regarded as a trivial task? Are you able to allocate sufficient resources and importance to it? Consider the effort put in to the partner programme.
  

  Well, I think no one can complain about the effort we are investing in supporting our community, at least from the technical point of view, and it has never been seen as a second class group. The question is mainly if there is any interest among the members of the forum to start an open dialog about the business and services on eBox and whether that is going to drag any benefit for people entering the conversation.

  
  Is the purpose of the dialogue as clearly defined and understood as that for a paying customer? Are the benefits seen and accepted within eBox Technologies?
  

  I think that is what we are currently doing: setting the purpose of the dialogue

  
  Additionally, and without being in any way contentious, no feedback was provided to respondents concerning the conclusions drawn from your initial poll. Would any feedback have been provided following Elliot’s poll or was my request for information posted before you had the opportunity to do so?
  

  I don’t think that poll is closed. Actually there are still people voting and the results have changed substantially during the last couple of weeks. As an example, the function of eBox as a firewall / routing / proxy is now considered more important than email server. I would like to stop soon and gather conclusions from the polls and the contributions but I think it takes time to draw conclusions.

  
  I stumbled across this blog by pure chance. Why is it attached to the main web site of eBox Technologies under a heading of ‘Company’?
  

  The reason is simple: the eBox Platform web site is yet to be reorganized and it is still lacking the link for the eBox planet.

  
  From my perspective, it is desirable to have access to a decision maker.
  

  Glad to hear that.

  
  While posting these comments a question has formed. Is the exchange of ideas in this blog the type of dialogue you are seeking?
  

  Not really. I started this blog as a way to summarize the lessons I am learning developing the business in eBox, and this exchange of ideas started by pure chance. The type of dialogue I would be seeking is an open conversation using a main communication channel with the community (probably the forum), in a way to establish a multidirectional feedback about how we are developing the business around eBox. My expectation is that we could have a way to explain our plans to make eBox a sustainable business and to gather feedback about whether it makes sense or not. My hope is that in the long term it becomes a place for people to learn about each other experiences, propose ideas and be able to form several value-added offerings on an Internet-based collaboration model between community members. A kind of 2.0 eBox-based business model incubator. But by the moment this is only dreaming.

• 10.    SamK  |  September 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  
  The question is mainly if there is any interest among the members of the forum to start an open dialog about the business and services on eBox and whether that is going to drag any benefit for people entering the conversation.
  

  This is probably the crux of the matter. Your initial poll obtained an encouraging number of responses. Perhaps the following factors played a role in this:
  * The novelty of being able communicate directly with the CEO,
  * The nature of the the requested feedback.

  Previously this thread has touched on the nature of the existing eBox forum as being a technical area, predominately used by technically inclined people asking technically focused break+fix type questions. Your poll represented ’safe ground’ for such a group as it was asking questions which are directly relevant to their day-to-day experiences e.g.
  * What do you use eBox to do?
  * What functions are missing?
  (Perhaps a separate topic for discussion might be why the existing feature request mechanism does not supply this)

  
  My expectation is that we could have a way to explain our plans to make eBox a sustainable business and to gather feedback about whether it makes sense or not.
  

  This seems to be moving away from a primarily technical dialogue; it invites a wider view to be taken. Customarily, those with strategic influencer are budget holders rather than technicians.

  
  Or maybe they consider the forum as a purely technical area and were there business related discussions maybe they would join the conversation openly.
  

  This may well prove to be the case but currently only technical boards exist. A linear channel between a paying customer and the ‘business guy’ will exist in addition to any indirect forum based mechanism. If this route is deemed to be more direct and responsive by a paying customer it will be the channel most often used.

  
  My hope is that in the long term it becomes a place for people to learn about each other experiences, propose ideas and be able to form several value-added offerings on an Internet-based collaboration model between community members.
  

  If this aspiration can be achieved it may well be to the advantage of both the paying and non paying customer groups. It may benefit from your active encouragement of the whole community in order for it to become self sustaining.

  
  But by the moment this is only dreaming.
  

  Someone else had a degree of success with a similar sentiment only their expression was “I have a dream”.

• 11.    Ignacio Correas  |  September 28th, 2009 at 11:24 am

  
  * What do you use eBox to do?
  * What functions are missing?
  (Perhaps a separate topic for discussion might be why the existing feature request mechanism does not supply this)
  

  Well, as you know the feature request is handled directly in the forum
  http://forum.ebox-platform.com/index.php?board=7.0

  It’s maybe not a very structured way but it definitely allows for discussions, which in this case I think are important.

  Regarding the gathering of statistic data on usage of eBox, we have discussed it internally a few times and it is not easy to implement a way that is non-intrusive and more accurate than just polls.

  
  This seems to be moving away from a primarily technical dialogue; it invites a wider view to be taken. Customarily, those with strategic influencer are budget holders rather than technicians.
  

  Customarily yes, but as our partnership program evolves we are realizing that a lot of our business users are small companies and very small local providers, so the technical people usually have a wide view on their company processes and needs and are very close to decision makers. So, it might make sense after all.

  
  If this aspiration can be achieved it may well be to the advantage of both the paying and non paying customer groups. It may benefit from your active encouragement of the whole community in order for it to become self sustaining.
  

  Thanks for your insights. I am really enjoying this conversation and you have helped me a lot to clear up my ideas. I still need to discuss it internally but I will try to implement this ideas as soon as possible.

  
  Someone else had a degree of success with a similar sentiment only their expression was “I have a dream”.
  

  Indeed

Leave a comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed