The price of success is heavy in the open source world. As your software gets more popular, the number of people who show up looking for information increases dramatically, while the number of people able to provide information increases much more slowly. Furthermore, even if the ratio were evenly balanced, there is still a fundamental scalability problem with the way most open source projects handle communications. Consider mailing lists, for example. Most projects have a mailing list for general user questions — sometimes the list's name is "users", "discuss", "help", or something else. Whatever its name, the purpose of the list is always the same: to provide a place where people can get their questions answered, while others watch and (presumably) absorb knowledge from observing these exchanges.
These mailing lists work very well up to a few thousand users and/or a couple of hundred posts a day. But somewhere after that, the system starts to break down, because every subscriber sees every post; if the number of posts to the list begins to exceed what any individual reader can process in a day, the list becomes a burden to its members. Imagine, for instance, if Microsoft had such a mailing list for Windows. Windows has hundreds of millions of users; if even one-tenth of one percent of them had questions in a given twenty-four hour period, then this hypothetical list would get hundreds of thousands of posts per day! Such a list could never exist, of course, because no one would stay subscribed to it. This problem is not limited to mailing lists; the same logic applies to chat rooms, other discussion forums, indeed to any system in which a group hears questions from individuals. The implications are ominous: the usual open source model of massively parallelized support simply does not scale to the levels needed for world domination.
There is no explosion when forums reach the breaking point. There is just a quiet negative feedback effect: people unsubscribe from the lists, or leave the chat room, or at any rate stop bothering to ask questions, because they can see they won't be heard in all the noise. As more and more people make this highly rational choice, the forum's activity will seem to stay at a manageable level. But it appears manageable precisely because the rational (or at least, experienced) people have started going elsewhere for information — while the inexperienced people stay behind and continue posting. In other words, one side effect of continuing to use unscalable communications models as a project grows is that the average quality of communications tends to go down. As the benefit/cost ratio of using high-population forums goes down, naturally those with the experience to do so start to look elsewhere for answers first.
Adjusting communications mechanisms to cope with project growth therefore involves two related strategies:
Recognizing when particular parts of a forum are not suffering unbounded growth, even if the forum as a whole is, and separating those parts off into new, more specialized forums (i.e., don't let the good be dragged down by the bad).
Making sure there are many automated sources of information available, and that they are kept organized, up-to-date, and easy to find.
Strategy (1) is usually not too hard. Most projects start out with one main forum: a general discussion mailing list, on which feature ideas, design questions, and coding problems can all be hashed out. Everyone involved with the project is in that forum. After a while, it usually becomes clear that the list has evolved into several distinct topic-based sublists. For example, some threads are clearly about development and design; others are user questions of the "How do I do X?" variety; maybe there's a third topic family centered around processing bug reports and enhancement requests; and so on. A given individual, of course, might participate in many different thread types, but the important thing is that there is not a lot of overlap between the types themselves. They could be divided into separate forums without causing harmful balkanization, because the threads rarely cross topic boundaries.
Actually doing this division is a two-step process. You create the new list (or chat room, or whatever it is to be), and then you spend whatever time is necessary gently nagging and reminding people to use the new forums appropriately. That latter step can last for weeks, but eventually people will get the idea. You simply have to make a point of always telling the sender when a post is sent to the wrong destination, and doing so visibly, so that other people are encouraged to help out with routing. It's also useful to have a web page providing a guide to all the forums available; your responses can simply reference that web page and, as a bonus, the recipient may learn something about looking for guidelines before posting.
Strategy (2) is an ongoing process, lasting the lifetime of the project and involving many participants. Of course it is partly a matter of having up-to-date documentation (see the section called “Documentation”) and making sure to point people there. But it is also much more than that; the sections that follow discuss this strategy in detail.
Typically, all communications in an open source project, except private chat conversations, are archived. The archives are public and searchable, and have referential stability: that is, once a given piece of information is recorded at a particular address (URL), it stays at that address forever.
Use those archives as much as possible, and as conspicuously as possible. Even when you know the answer to some question off the top of your head, if you think there's a reference in the archives that contains the answer, spend the time to dig it up and present it. Every time you do that in a publicly visible way, some people learn for the first time that the archives are there, and that searching in them can produce answers. Also, by referring to the archives instead of rewriting the advice, you reinforce the social norm against duplicating information. Why have the same answer in two different places? When the number of places it can be found is kept to a minimum, people who have found it before are more likely to remember what to search for to find it again. Well-placed references also contribute to improving search results, because they strengthen the targeted resource's ranking in Internet search engines.
There are times when duplicating information makes sense, however. For example, suppose there's a response already in the archives, not from you, saying:
It appears that your Scanley indexes have become frobnicated. To unfrobnicate them, run these steps: 1. Shut down the Scanley server. 2. Run the 'defrobnicate' program that ships with Scanley. 3. Start up the server.
Then, months later, you see another post indicating that someone's indexes have become frobnicated. You search the archives and come up with the old response above, but you realize it's missing some steps (perhaps by mistake, or perhaps because the software has changed since that post was written). The classiest way to handle this is to post a new, more complete set of instructions, and explicitly obsolete the old post by mentioning it:
It appears that your Scanley indexes have become frobnicated. We saw this problem back in July, and J. Random posted a solution at http://blahblahblah/blah. Below is a more complete description of how to unfrobnicate your indexes, based on J. Random's instructions but extending them a bit: 1. Shut down the Scanley server. 2. Become the user the Scanley server normally runs as. 3. Run the 'defrobnicate' program on the indexes. 4. Run Scanley by hand to see if the indexes work now. 5. Restart the server.
(In an ideal world, it would be possible to attach a note to the old post, saying that there is newer information available and pointing to the new post. However, I don't know of any archiving software that offers an "obsoleted by" tag. This is another reason why creating dedicated web pages with answers to common questions is a good idea. )
Archives are probably most often searched for answers to technical questions, but their importance to the project goes well beyond that. If a project's formal guidelines are its statutory law, the archives are its common law: a record of all decisions made and how they were arrived at. In any recurring discussion, it's pretty much obligatory nowadays to start with an archive search. This allows you to begin the discussion with a summary of the current state of things, anticipate objections, prepare rebuttals, and possibly discover angles you hadn't thought of. Also, the other participants will expect you to have done an archive search. Even if the previous discussions went nowhere, you should include pointers to them when you re-raise the topic, so people can see for themselves a) that they went nowhere, and b) that you did your homework, and therefore are probably saying something now that has not been said before.
All of the preceding advice applies to more than just mailing list archives. Having each particular piece of information be located at a stable, conveniently findable address (or permalink) should be an organizing principle for all of the project's information. Let's take the project FAQ as a case study.
How do people use a FAQ?
They want to search in it for specific words and phrases.
Therefore: the FAQ should be available in some sort of textual format.
They expect search engines such as Google to know about the FAQ's content, so that searches can result in FAQ entries.
Therefore: the FAQ should be available as a web page.
They want to browse it, soaking up information without necessarily looking for answers to specific questions.
Therefore: the FAQ should not only be available as a web page, it should be designed for easy browseability and have a table of contents.
They want to be able to refer other people directly to specific items in the FAQ.
They want to be able to add new material to the FAQ, though note that this happens much less often than answers are looked up — FAQs are far more often read from than written to.
Therefore: the source files for the FAQ should be conveniently available (see the section called “Version Everything”), in a format that's easy to edit.
Formatting the FAQ like this is just one example of how to make a resource presentable. The same properties — direct searchability, availability to major Internet search engines, browsability, referential stability, and (where applicable) editability — apply to other web pages, to the source code tree, to the bug tracker, to Q&A forums, etc. It just happens that most mailing list archiving software long ago recognized the importance of these properties, which is why mailing lists tend to have this functionality natively, while other formats may require a little extra effort on the maintainer's part. Chapter 8, Managing Participants discusses how to spread that maintenance burden across many participants.
As a project acquires history and complexity, the amount of data each new incoming participant must absorb increases. Those who have been with the project a long time were able to learn, and invent, the project's conventions as they went along. They will often not be consciously aware of what a huge body of tradition has accumulated, and may be surprised at how many missteps recent newcomers seem to make. Of course, the issue is not that the newcomers are of any lower quality than before; it's that they face a bigger acculturation burden than newcomers did in the past.
The traditions a project accumulates are as much about how to communicate and organize information as they are about coding standards and other technical minutae. We've already looked at both sorts of standards, in the section called “Developer Documentation” and the section called “Writing It All Down” respectively, and examples are given there. What this section is about is how to keep such guidelines up-to-date as the project evolves, especially guidelines about how communications are managed, because those are the ones that change the most as the project grows in size and complexity.
First, watch for patterns in how people get confused. If you see the same situations coming up over and over, especially with new participants, chances are there is a guideline that needs to be documented but isn't. Second, don't get tired of saying the same things over and over again, and don't sound like you're tired of saying them. You and other project veterans will have to repeat yourselves often; this is an inevitable side effect of the arrival of newcomers.
Every web page, every mailing list message, and every chat room should be considered advertising space — not for commercial advertisements, but for ads about your project's own resources. What you put in that space depends on the demographics of those likely to read it. An chat room for user questions, for example, is likely to get people who have never interacted with the project before — often someone who has just installed the software, and has a question she'd like answered immediately (after all, if it could wait, she'd have sent it to a mailing list instead, which would probably use less of her total time, although it would take longer for an answer to come back). Most people don't make a permanent investment in a support chat; they show up, ask their question, and leave.
Therefore, the room's topic banner should be aimed at people looking for technical answers about the software right now, rather than at, say, people who might get involved with the project in a long term way and for whom community interaction guidelines might be more appropriate.
With mailing lists, the "ad space" is a tiny footer appended to every message. Most projects put subscription/unsubscription instructions there, and perhaps a pointer to the project's home page or FAQ page as well. You might think that anyone subscribed to the list would know where to find those things, and they probably do — but many more people than just subscribers see those mailing list messages. An archived post may be linked to from many places; indeed, some posts become so widely known that they eventually have more readers off the list than on it.
Formatting can make a big difference. For example, in the Subversion project, we were having limited success using the bug-filtering technique described in the section called “Pre-Filtering the Bug Tracker”. Many bogus bug reports were still being filed by inexperienced people, because Subversion was experiencing dramatic user growth, and each time it happened, the filer had to be educated in exactly the same way as the 500 people before him. One day, after one of our developers had finally gotten to the end of his rope and flamed some poor user who didn't read the ticket tracker guidelines carefully enough, another developer decided this pattern had gone on long enough. He suggested that we reformat the ticket tracker front page so that the most important part, the injunction to discuss the bug on the mailing lists or chat rooms before filing, would stand out in huge, bold red letters, on a bright yellow background, centered prominently above everything else on the page. We did so (it's been reformatted a bit since then, but it's still very prominent — you can see the results at https://subversion.apache.org/reporting-issues.html), and the result was a noticeable drop in the rate of bogus ticket filings. The project still got them, of course, but the rate slowed considerably, even as the number of users increased. The outcome was not only that the bug database contained less junk, but that those who responded to ticket filings stayed in a better mood, and were more likely to remain friendly when responding to one of the now-rare bogus filings. This improved both the project's image and the mental health of its participants.
The lesson for us was that merely writing up the guidelines was not enough. We also had to put them where they'd be seen by those who need them most, and format them in such a way that their status as introductory material would be immediately clear to people unfamiliar with the project.
Static web pages are not the only venue for advertising the project's customs. A certain amount of interactive monitoring (in the friendly-reminder sense, not the prison-panopticon sense) is also required. All peer review, even the commit reviews described in the section called “Practice Conspicuous Code Review”, should include review of people's adherence to project norms, especially with regard to communications conventions.
Another example from the Subversion project: we settled on a convention of "r12908" to mean "revision 12908 in the version control repository." The lower-case "r" prefix is easy to type, and because it's half the height of the digits it makes an easily-recognizable block of text when combined with the digits. Of course, settling on the convention doesn't mean that everyone will begin using it consistently right away. Thus, when a change comes in with a commit message like this:
Typo fixes from J. Random Contributor * trunk/contrib/client-side/psvn/psvn.el: Fixed some typos from revision 12828.
...part of reviewing that commit is to say "By the way, please use 'r12828', not 'revision 12828' when referring to past changes." This isn't just pedantry; it's important as much for automatic parsability as for human readership.
By following the general principle that there should be canonical referral methods for common entities, and that these referral methods should be used consistently everywhere, the project in effect exports certain standards. Those standards enable people to write tools that present the project's communications in more useable ways — for example, a revision formatted as "r12828" could be transformed into a live link into the repository browsing system. This would be harder to do if the revision were written as "revision 12828", both because that form could be divided across a line break, and because it's less distinct (the word "revision" will often appear alone, and groups of numbers will often appear alone, whereas the combination "r12828" can only mean a revision number). Similar concerns apply to ticket numbers, FAQ items, etc.
(Note that for Git commit IDs, the widely-accepted standard
syntax is "
commit c03dd89305, that is, the word
"commit", followed by a space, followed by the first 8-10 characters
of the commit hash. Some very busy projects have standardized on 12
characters, to avoid collisions; the only time all 40 characters of
the hash are used is in non-human-readable contexts, like saving a
commit ID in an automated release-tracking system or something.)
Even for entities where there is not an obvious short, canonical form, people should still be encouraged to provide key pieces of information consistently. For example, when referring to a mailing list message, don't just give the sender and subject; also give the archive URL and the Message-ID header. The last allows people who have their own copy of the mailing list (people sometimes keep offline copies, for example to use on a laptop while traveling) to unambiguously identify the right message in a search even if they don't have access to the online archives. The sender and subject wouldn't be enough, because the same person might make several posts in the same thread, even on the same day.
The more a project grows, the more important this sort of consistency becomes. Consistency means that everywhere people look, they see the same patterns being followed, and start to follow those patterns themselves. This, in turn, reduces the number of questions they need to ask. The burden of having a million readers is no greater than that of having one; scalability problems start to arise only when a certain percentage of those readers ask questions. As a project grows, therefore, it must reduce that percentage by increasing the density and findability of information, so that any given person is more likely to find what she needs without having to ask.
 An interesting experiment would be a probablistic mailing list, that sends each new thread-originating post to a random subset of subscribers, based on the approximate traffic level they signed up for, and keeps just that subset subscribed to the rest of the thread; such a forum could in theory scale without limit. If you try it, let me know how it works out.
 Many technical questions about open source software also have answers posted on Stack Overflow (https://stackoverflow.com/), a collaborative knowledge-sharing site. If you happen to know about an item on Stack Overflow that needs to be updated due to changes in the software, then posting the new answer in that item may be worthwhile. Stack Overflow is often the first place people go to find answers, and its answers tend to rank very highly in search engines, at least as of this writing in early 2022 and for some years preceding.
 Not all chat platforms support per-room topic banners. The advice given here applies only to those that do.
 For more about how to write good commit messages, see Chris Beams' excellent post "How to Write a Git Commit Message" at https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/. Many projects refer to that post as their baseline standard for commit messages.