(2014-05-11) Coalition Created Intellectual Property

Someone told me about a "community that helps others work better together". I think it's basically a Coalition of independent Consultant-s. And they created some Intellectual Property together (a process/vocabulary and some static materials - no software). And now some members of the group want to make all that IP Open Source, while others want to keep it closed/proprietary. "Once it's open, the closely-held crowd will lose its ability to charge for that knowledge and to control who dispenses it and how."

So obvious meta-learnings include:

• if you invest time with others but have no agreement on outcomes/governance, you increase your risk of eventually feeling cheated
• hopefully all parties involved will be more humble in pitching their magical conflict resolution process

It sounds like the Closed crowd is in the position of weakness, since they have no real/obvious ability to force secrecy. So what are their options?

• Use various Influence techniques to suppress the Open group. Know that secrets can be kept, but at least they'll be slowed, and harvested in the meantime.
• Give up and join the Open crowd. Launch a big public Manifesto (see Agile Alliance origin story) and market yourself for years as one of the founders of that movement. (Size of group might dilute this value...)
• Split the IP in some way, so there's an Open piece (platform?) and other bits that are kept secret. Attach the Manifesto to the open bits, etc. (see RedHat, MySQL, etc.)
• Let the Open crowd go open over your objections, divorce yourself from that crowd (don't sign Manifesto, don't let your name be used), try to package/customize your offering in a way that distinguishes itself from the Open part.
• other ideas?

What are the options for the Open team, besides the obvious Go Public and Give In And Stay Closed?

• Offer transition period/process: maybe go public with big picture now, keep details closed/private for 1 year?
• Listen to the Closed people carefully. Someone else noted: "It's going to be a debate about the different participants assumptions of what the future holds, what their current personal state is and how decisions regarding whether to open or close the material will affect them personally. My guess is that there will be more empathy at that point and therefore more willingness to compromise."