On communities: Sometimes it's better to over-communicate
Communities, regardless of their size, rely mainly on the communication there is between their members to operate. The existing processes, the current discussions, and the future growth depend heavily on how well the communication throughout the community has been established. The channels used for these conversations play a critical role in the health of the communication (and the community) as well.
The things that are communicated are, of course, important. They are the objects being sent among the peers in the community. These things are the messages traveling throughout the system and they must respect a protocol, like every message in every other protocol. Failing to respect this protocol will result in a non-effective communication. Failed communications have side-effects on the system.
A community is a live ecosystem and as such it relies on communications to inform other peers of the system about the current status, evolution, changes, etc. These communications (or channels therefor) cannot guarantee awareness. Let us leave delivery guarantees aside for the sake of the argument being made. Awareness comes after delivery and delivery does not guarantee awareness. A message could have been delivered to other members of the ecosystem but it does not mean the message was processed, therefore the peer may be neither aware of the message nor of the message content even after the message was delivered.
Think of emails, blogs, or any other asynchronous way of communication. None of these channels can guarantee the peers that have received the message have actually read it. This is not under the sender's control. There's a large number of elements that may affect the communication. If you take mailing lists, for example, it may very well be that the receiver of the message is getting too many emails and therefore is subject to missing some of them. This is just one, realistic, example of what could happen. The number of cases that can cause lack of awareness is bigger than what I've mentioned so far but it's not worth exploring it any further.
The way some systems cope with the lack of the above guarantees is by propagating the same message several times - perhaps through different channels - with the same expectations (or lack thereof). Over-communicating won't solve the issue of peers not being aware of the message. This won't get rid of surprises. It does, however, increases the probabilities of the message being processed.
The use of multiple channels will provide different ways for consumers of this message to process it. Communities, specifically, are built by individual peers from different environments and cultures. These peers have different preferences and they may consume messages from different sources. It is indeed impossible to cover all the options and to satisfy every preference. Selecting the right set of channels for these communications and propagating the messages through multiple of these channels when necessary is the key to increase the probability for the messages to be consumed.
Over-communicating does not imply spamming consumers, it does not imply sending the same message, multiple times, through the same channel either. Over-communicating, in the context of communities, requires using different channels to reach different sets of peers. These sets may overlap, nonetheless.
Surprise (sometimes) doesn't mean there's lack of communication or transparency. It's important, however, to reflect on whether the communication channels and methodologies being used are the right ones - or simply enough - for reducing the lack of awareness.
If you liked this post, you may be interested in the keynote I gave at Pycon South Africa. Keeping up with the pace of a fast growing community without dyingTweet
Hi. I’m Flavio Percoco (a.k.a flaper87), and I’m a Software Engineer at Red Hat, where I spend my days working on OpenStack, speaking at conferences. In my spare time I contribute to Rust, write, read, surf, travel, smoke my coffee and drink my pipe.