Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I maintain an Open Source Android app. Every once in a while, some anonymous hero localizes to its mother tongue, sending files or using our online tool.
At first I thought the magic of collaboration would be enough to provide timely localizations, but actually, the UI strings change, and each release ships with roughly:
5 languages localized at 100%
8 languages localized at 70% (because recent strings have not been localized)
I am extremely thankful, but is there something I can do to bring the localizations from 70% to 100% when the release comes?
I send messages on the mailing list at code freeze a month before each release, and then a week before, but most of the people who contributed localizations don't read the mailing list, in fact most of them were probably just good samaritans passing by.
Should I stalk the translators and ask them personally?
I have been thinking about having a person responsible for each language. This person (how should I call the role?) would be "responsible" for bringing the translation to 100% before each release. Their names would be listed in the "About" dialog. Is it a good or a bad strategy? Any tips?
It's the 90-9-1 principle - http://www.90-9-1.com/ - and designating people in charge of things isn't going to do it. You can offer cash - rewards/pay - or you can groom them. If you bring money into the mix, remember that it quickly becomes tradeoff analysis. People will compare what you offer versus what they can earn on their own. Since I assume you don't have that much money, you don't want that sort of comparison.
Realistically, grooming them is a better option. You've done the first step - include them - show that their fixes, updates, etc are included and help the product. The next step is publicly thanking them and appreciating them. That will get the first 80% as you've seen. The next step is getting them personally committed. Start interacting with them directly. Send them your thanks.. not just in email. If you have a product t-shirt, send them one with a hand written note. In your release notes, link to their sites. If you ever see them in person, buy their coffee.. whatever. The point is that you go out of your way - however small - to acknowledge that they're going out of their own way.
I'm the Project Lead of the Open Source Project Management System web2project and have been doing this longer than I care to consider. ;)
Use both a carrot and a stick approach. Giving people credit in your "About" screen, and calling them the lead translator for a particular language (if they're willing to accept that responsibility) is a good thing. Don't include a translation until you've gotten someone to commit to being the lead translator for that language; just like with code, you don't want to accept contributions unless (a) you are able and willing to maintain those contributions or (b) someone who you consider reliable has volunteered to be responsible for maintaining it.
The "stick" is that if someone stops maintaining a language, and fails to appropriately pass the responsibility off to someone else, you will remove that language from the next version of your application. Most people who translate your app probably do so because they would prefer to use your app in their native language. The threat of removing the language from the next version, or the wake-up call when they find that the next version doesn't contain their language, might inspire them to come back and finish up the last 30% translation work.
You are getting it wrong, community translation is an ongoing process or lets say never ending approach.
This doesn't meant that is wrong, but you have to live with the fact that localization is always a compromise and that Usually, it is better to have 20 languages with 50% translation than having 10 languages 100% translated.
If one language is important, it will have more users, so it will have more contributors and the translation rate will be greater.
You don't know when and if the translation for a specific language will be 100%, probably never.
The good part is that you shouldn't care about obtaining 100%, you should spend your effort in motivating people to contribute.
Probably you already know, community translation doesn't play well with packed products.
The solution to this problem is to change the way you work and provide partial translations in your release and a simple update system that updates them (preferably a silent one, like the Chromium update).
PS. If you need to assure a 100% translation rate for a limited number of languages before your release, consider paying a translation vendor to do it.
Well, you get what you paid for. The strategy that you are planing to implement will not give you anything. That's because heroes have their own lives. The only way to get this done, is to engage more people to translate, because completion percentage is a function of a community size.
If your application is useful enough, you may try to give a link "help to translate into your language" and this could do for a while.
Think of creating discussion group or board that you could post "Call for translation" when you are ready to ship. Translators usually don't have a time to track changes.
One thing to note is that localization people need time to do the localizations, and the less they're getting paid for it, the longer they need. This means that you should at least try to avoid changing the localization keys (especially including defining new ones) shortly before a release. I know it's nice to not be constrained like that, but the reality is that if you're not paying then you're not going to get a fast turnaround in the majority of cases, so you have to plan for this and mitigate in your schedule. In effect, you have to stop thinking about the text shown to a user as something that can be finalized late in the project and instead start treating it as an important interface matter that you'll plan to lock down much earlier.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Some time ago I observed a few people trying to start an open source project. About a week after the project started it more or less completely dissolved, partly due to issues with how the project itself was managed.
The ideas behind the project were however very well thought and a lot of people are still interested in seeing it realized. So far no one have made any serious attempt to recreate it but a few of us are thinking about doing so. Of course we don't want the project to end the same way it did last time.
Now to my question. How should one start a successful open source project, where successful is defined as "the project does not die unless no one is no longer interested in the software itself anymore?"
Nice question, though it's more worthy of a book than a simple article, IMHO. And I hope it comes as no surprise that most of the best advice is social, not technical.
Here are some observations in no particular order:
Don't make a big infrastructure investment up front Unless you're already an Apache committer (or somesuch), don't shop around for a sponsoring organization or host your own servers, etc. Get up on GitHub in 5 minutes and don't look back. Put your energy in features.
Lower the barrier for entry Don't make potential contributors jump through hoops or undergo a background check before you'll listen to their ideas. Open source projects are networked economies... you need the energy of others. Even misguided activity is better than no activity on your project. You can always steer the codebase in a better direction later.
Minimize custom code Don't write a custom logging tool or XML parsing API... there are open source implementations that are (1) good enough, (2) better maintained, and (3) better than yours will become anyway. The more energy you can focus on your core problem, the better.
Live on the edge People and organizations will only invest in improving your project if they will directly benefit. Eat your own dogfood. Create dependencies in your other projects (like with your employer) on your open source project, even if it isn't "perfect" yet. (Hint: software projects are never perfect, they're either works-in-progress or dead.)
GitHub is a good place because it makes it easy for someone with even just a little bit of interest to fork your project and apply his/her patches to share with others.
But it's really about the attitudes around your project more than where you host it or other simple considerations like that. Be benevolent, serious, and judicious, keep a community going even though it will be pretty small for a while, and so on. Accept patches that should be accepted, reject patches that should be rejected. Just be a good person, developer, and manager, and apply those skills to your project, and it should be fine.
You are saying it yourself. The most important thing is that it should have people who care enough about it to deal with the problems instead of abandoning.
If no one cares enough, it will die again. Try a different project where you do care enough.
"A lot of people interested in seeing it realized" means nothing if nobody will actually do the work, fight the fights and stay put.
I don't think it's set in stone, but for me the biggest point is that your project should fill a gap in the existing ecosystem. In other words, there has to a space for your project to live.
Other than that, I can say that the best way to stay motivated is to work together with people. You say that there are still a lot of people interesting in seeing it realized. So, why don't those people do something about it? Surely they can do something. I think a common misconception is that contributing to an open-source project means you have to be able to write code.
There's more to it:
Write documentation
Create graphical elements
Discuss features and roadmaps
promote the project
etc. etc.
Sure, not all of these points are applicable to every project, but trying to get people to commit to a project will eventually help you and/or your projectmembers to stay commited as well. You don't want to let down all the other folks on the project, do you? ;-)
This is kind of off-topic on SO, but I'll bite anyway.
Most FOSS projects are started by a SINGLE person. Other people come on board after this person has produced some code that does something vaguely useful. So if you want to start a project, do it yourself, set up a site on something like Google Code, and write some code. The last is the most important.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
We're a medium sized engineering shop (10-20). We are great at prioritizing and structuring work on our user facing stories and making customers happy. But the cobbler's children have no shoes. If it isn't about customers, we have 0 process.
I'm looking for systems to ensure we correctly prioritize and accomplish the non user facing work to keep a dev shop running: QA environments (pretty heavy, in our case), continuous integration systems, the packaging, and so forth.
Now, resources are always limited. We don't want to give the cobblers children 10 pair of the fanciest shoes, and specialized bike shoes to boot. We want to do the right, necessary work, with the same scrummy discipline that is applied to the rest of our development.
Tell me what system works for you: how to you prioritize and organize non-user facing work ? I want systems that are simple and integrate smoothly with scrum.
(I'm aware of a red box at the top of this text, indicating that Stack Overflow's automated question parser thinks this is a subjective question that can't be answered - I think there are likely 2 or 3 excellent answers that can be or have been proven viable - and process is integral to programming. So here is some psuedocode representing our process. Fix this algorithym).
IBacklog GetBacklogForWork(IWork requestedWork)
{
if(requestedWork.IsUserFacing) return new PrioritizedBacklogRepository();
// Everything else. Priority largely based on spare time and who thinks its a neat idea
return new RandomizedPriorityRepository();
}
void HandleIncomingSuggestionsForWork(IEnumerable(IWork) ideas)
{
foreach(work in ideas) GetBacklogForWork(work).Insert(work);
}
Someone involved is using and depending on the results of the project. This is necessarily true; if it weren't true, why would you be doing it?
When you identify the person who most depends upon, or cares most about, the results of the project, you have the "user" that your project is facing. Make that person the customer.
IMO something like "QA environments" is, in a sense, user-facing work.
Quality is admittedly a "non-functional" requirement (so there isn't necessarily an associated "story"). But, you may have a non-functional requirement like "the software must be tested before it's shipped". You can assign a relative priority to such a requirement ("how important is it that software be tested?"), and then execute as usual (decide how to implement that requirement, estimate how long it will take to implement, schedule the implementation, assign the implementation, etc.).
What we do where I work is to have a percentage, right now around 15% give or take a few percent, that is spent on internal tasks that are non-user facing work. This way the technical debt is handled and if the task backlog becomes rather large then a sprint may be spent on it instead of new functionality. The way that last one would get pitched to the user or customer is that there will be a time where just maintenance and preventive work is done so there aren't any new functions coming after the next sprint.
That's one idea that can be tweaked a bit though it isn't necessarily fully flushed out yet.
The way I've seen it work more or less ok is to try to do as much as possible of the non-functional/non-user-facing as PART of a related user-facing activity, or the first user-facing activity that requires it.
This is the easiest to cope with, as it just reflects the needs of the development organization in order to maintain sustainable velocity moving forward.
Additional work which cannot be related will be done using a percentage as described by JB King.
The alternative of pitching it as an investment with such and such ROI to the PO is a theoretically sexy concept, but with real life POs I've seen it rarely works.
Its very hard to get POs to understand the investment, not to mention actually being strong enough to delay functionality for it.
Its sometimes the difficult role of the development teams to be the guys that "slow things down" in order to keep a sustainable situation.
Dev managers sometimes feel really bad about this whole sitation, regardless of the chosen approach. My recommendation both as someone who's been in that spot, as well as an Agile coach, is that as long as you feel you are doing the right thing for the business, focusing on non-functional work that is required NOW and has a relatively quick ROI, you should feel ok about this.
Cautionary note: This is an area where self-organization is really put to the challenge. Organization needs to trust the team to do the right thing, and the team needs to earn and not abuse that trust. Its a sign of maturity for an individual or a team to know the right balance.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've got a framework for PHP that I've developed for about 3 weeks total, but it's quite ready to be released ... if I choose to do so. In this economy I cannot just take what I have done and release it for free and feel just (because I need the money it could garner), and yet I am torn by my appreciation for open source projects. I want to eat and I want to share as open source. I'm sure some understand my conundrum right off the bat.
As an example of the pros and cons of my project, here's a very quick comparison against CodeIgniter. My framework is 10x faster at the base speed (blank CI versus the basic demo of mine) and gets upto 20-30x faster elsewhere. Yet, my framework lacks many things that CI has like advanced routing (with regex, or named parameters) and ORM. If I was to compare it to a similar framework in another language, I'd call my work the Sinatra, or Ramaze, of PHP.
I need some extra income. This is a flat-out fact, and yet I don't want it to be a strictly commercial project.
I like open source, and I want to contribute my own work. Yes, I know frameworks for PHP are a dime a dozen, but I think I might have something here. So, I don't want to let my work go entirely.
So I remain torn. Licensing can help, but only when people are honest. I don't believe in putting "DRM" into my software. Yet, I don't have enough features to say, "If you donate/pay you'll get X other features!" and make a benefit to this.
How do I (can I) sell this? How do I promote it and release it as open-source for free uses? How do I license my work adequately for these purposes?
What is your general policy or tips for projects like this? Especially when you want a cut of the profit someone would get using your project commercially. What licenses, restrictions, etc, do you think would work in this model?
I appreciate any answers which might help me to figure out what to do.
Edit:
To clarify on what I'm thinking, let me add this: this is my pet project. It's something that I made because I felt its lack in the market of PHP frameworks, and have been maintaining it for my own works. But, unlike most my work, I would really like to make this public. I want people to see it, try it, use it, and work with it.
However, I've put in enough off-hours time into this for it to be just given away. I appreciate the open source model, but I don't see how I can just donate some 80+ hours of work for free for a speculative increase in my "reputation" within the software world. PHP frameworks are a dime a dozen and I think I've made a good one, but I'm sure there are just as many others who've done the same. Mine may be better, but it's got an equal or greater chance of being average to poor.
I'd love to release my pet project to the world under an open source license. But, I'd rather someone not take my work and make software that nets some $30k in profits, and not give me a small slice of it. I'm not being greedy--I wouldn't care if it were only $100 for a profit that large.
I am simply trying to figure out how, when, or if I even should, monetize the work that I've done for myself.
I feel that if you actually believe you have started something big, release it to the open source world. If it get's adopted and becomes a standard for many, this in itself will open many more profit making opportunities for you as the creator/inventor. The biggest potential for you to make big money (in my opinion) is to be a major player/founder of a big initiative.
To be absolutely frank, you probably have an overinflated idea of how good your framework is and how ready it is to be released (in any form).
Firstly, you said it took you three weeks to develop. Well if you can do it in three weeks, so can a bunch of other people and that's a fact.
Secondly, release of a commercial product would require having a license (count on a lawyer for this one), writing documentation, building a Website to promote the product, having some means of payment, getting a suitable legal structure to sell software, insurances (generally speaking you'd need some sort of professional indemnity--open source is generally provided without indemnity; commercial software is different), bookkeeping, accounting and so on.
Third, it's PHP so source code protection will be an issue. My advice would be to treat this as a social rather than technical problem, meaning if someone is going to steal your software, there's not a whole lot you can do. More to the point, don't hurt (or even inconvenience) your legitimate users for fear of pirates and thieves.
Lastly, one of the advantages of open source is that you can get community effort in development. You lose that as soon as you go commercial. Even if you go dual license, you can't take someone's GPLed (for example) code contribution and release it under a commercial license.
You may need money but selling software is generally a terrible way of doing it. A longer term view would be to have you build a profile and a name for yourself by people adopting your framework and the best way to make that happen is for it to be open source. Linux may be free but I can guarantee you Linus Torvalds earns a healthy income from his efforts.
If the framework is indeed good, and sees a minimum adoption after it is released, you might be able to land some PHP consulting work.
For me the main problem with new software is credibility - it might be the best software yet, but if no one is using it and if reviews are nowhere to be found, I don't want to be a guinea pig. Making money from commercial software can be very hard if you don't find customers early on...
You could try the QT model: Dual-license you framework with a free copyleft license (you'll have to check which one is appropriate) and a paid-for commercial license.
You better choose dual licence.
Its similer to MySQL.
The best way may be to ask for donations. I would definitely donate if I liked your framework.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Suppose you're working on an enterprise project in which you have to get management signoff in order for you to develop a new feature set. Usually your management has no problem signing off on some bright shiny new UI feature. Unfortunately they have a hard time appreciating some behind-the-scenes issues that are crucial to the application's well-being such as transactions, data integrity, workflow routing, configurability, security, etc. Since they're non-technical and these issues are not immediately visible, it's not obvious to them that this is crucial.
How have you convinced them that these infrastructural issues have to be dealt with and that it is important to their business process?
Every craft has its unsexy sides. Things that HAVE to be done, but nobody notices them directly. In a grocery store somebody has to organize how and when to fill the grocery shelves so they always look fresh. In a laundry you need somebody who thinks about how the processes should be optimized so that the customer gets his clothes in time.
The tricky part is: The customer won't notice when these subtle things have been done right UNTIL HE NOTICES THEY ARE MISSING! Like when the laundry is not ready on time but two days late, or the veggies in the super market have brown spots and look terrible.
Same goes for IT. You don't notice good transactions until your major customer knocks on your door and tells you that an important and expensive project has failed because the database entries of your product were mysteriously mixed up. You don't notice good security until customer credit card information shows up in Elbonia (and soon after word is in the national newspapers warning customers of your company).
The thing you really have to hammer in again and again and again is that software is NOT static. It has to be cared for even after its initial development phase is over. It is not just a product you buy once and forget about. Every car manufacturer knows that services is of prime importance to the products they build, simply because things WILL occur that have to be fixed and improved. It's the same with software.
So make a presentation, visualize, verbalize, translate your technical information into benefits. Business people don't care about your wish for code aesthetics in a refactoring project, but they WILL understand that your changes will help the product to become more reliable, gain a better reputation and reduce the amount of future service requests. Make them understand by showing them the benefits!
Same thing folks have been doing for thousands of years: draw pictures. Diagram the problems, use visual metaphors familiar to your audience, drag the problem into their territory.
Assuming they're not being intentionally obtuse...
A big +1 for analogies and metaphors. If possible, find one that will resonate with the personal interests of your audience (if it's 1-2 people). For general metaphors, I often find myself using commuter traffic or subways, for some reason.
e.g. We are currently migrating an app from an OODB to Postgres/Hibernate: the bulk of this work is done in Release '4'. Many domain experts have been asking why there are so few user-facing features in R4. I regularly tell them that we have been 'tearing up the city to put in a subway. It is very expensive and undeniably risky, but once it is done, the benefits in R5+ will be astounding, truly.' The true conversation is more involved, but I can return to this theme again and again, well after R4. Months from now, I hope to say "You asked for X and it is now very easy -- precisely because you let us put in that subway back in R4".
The surest way to get upper level management to buy off on development work is to present it in a quantifiable way. Ideally this quantifiable measure is in $$. You need to explain to them the consequences of skimping on data integrity, security, transactions, etc. and how that will affect the customer\user community and eventually the bottom line. You should be careful in these situations because sometimes management expects these non-functional requirements to "just work." If this is the case, you should either estimate high and work on these items alongside the visible UI work (ignorance is bliss) or you need to document these areas of need as you communicate with management so if things do go bad as you anticipate, it's not your job that is on the line.
Unfortunately, it usually takes a disaster or two before this stuff gets the attention it deserves.
It really depends what your management is like, but I've had luck with good old honest-to-goodness fearmongering. If you go through a couple of disaster scenarios, and point out someone's going to get blamed if they occur, that can be enough to make their arsecovering instincts kick in and finally pay attention :)
Car analogies.
Everybody knows that 'system' and it's sufficiently complex to depict the dire situation.
I'm battling with essentially the same kind of situation. Whether it is sign-off by management or acceptance by a user/sponsor, the problem remains one of different vocabularies, priorities and perspectives. I asked a simmilar question here.
I also got diverse answers, tantalizingly close to useful, but not quite definitive enough. Browsing and searching SO using relevant keywords led me to find usable insights in various answers spread out over many unrelated questions. To find and extract these gems led me to pose this question on site-mining.
It would have been useful to be able to flag the various answers and see them all in a single list, but alas, that functionality is not yet available in SO. I suggested it on uservoice.
Hope you find something you can use from the references I gave.
The right kind of countering question is the secret.
Is it okay to crash every 5 web pages?
Do we have to protect the credit card numbers?
Is is okay to have to pay contractors to deploy a patch every weekend?
Did you want it now or did you want it to work?
Robustness. When it comes down to it, you need to talk their language, which is how it affects their bottom line. If its a security or correctness issue, you need to tell them that customers aren't going to want incorrectly acting products, no matter how nice they look.
I like the idea of Technical Debt, because it enables technical issues to be translated (albeit loosely) into money issues -- and money is something most managers do understand.
Although the idea of technical debt was originally applied to architectural issues, it can be used more broadly for any type of situation where there is pressure to take a shortcut -- that is, go into technical debt -- rather than do it right the first time. (Doing it right is the equivalent to saving up to buy something -- it takes time -- rather than buying it on credit and going into debt.)
Just as debts can be good (e.g. home loans) and bad (e.g. credit cards), so technical debt can be good and bad. I won't try to characterise the differences completely, but good technical debt can be tracked accurately, so that you know how much in debt you are.
So, try to explain your important, non-UI problem in terms of technical debt, and the cost of not fixing it in terms of paying interest on that debt.
A descriptive picture really helps non-technical people understand what you are talking about. For example, below is an example from Sun describing how information is processed in one of their somewhat complex applications.
(source: sun.com)
Trying to explain this application in words would be impossible to a non-techy. Pointing at the diagram and say look, this part is our weak point, we need to improve it. That will make sense to them. If they feel like they have some understanding of what you are doing, they will be far more willing to support your request.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a series of closed source applications and libraries, for which we think it would make sense opening up the source code.
What has been blocking us, so far, is the effort needed to clean up the code base and documenting the source before opening up.
We want to open up the source only if we have a reasonable chance of the projects being successful -- i.e. having contributors. We are convinced that the code would be interesting to a large base of developers.
Which factors, excluding the "interestingness" and "usefulness" of the project, determine the success of an open source project?
Examples:
Cleanliness of code
Availability of source code comments
Fully or partially documented APIs
Choice of license (GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD, etc...)
Choice of public repository
Investment in a public website
There are a several things which dominate the successfulness of code. All of these must be achieved for the slightest chance of adoption.
Market - There must be a market for your open source project. If your project is a orange juicer in space, I doubt that you'll be very successful. You must make sure your project gets a large adoption amongst users and developers. It is twice as likely to succeed if you can get other corporations to adopt it as well.
Documentation - As you touched on earlier documentation is key. Amongst this documentation is commented code, architectural decisions, and API notes. Even if your documentation contains bugs, or bugs about your software it is ok. Remember, transparency is key.
Freedom - You must allow your code to be "free" - by this I mean free as in speech, not as in beer. If you have a feeling your market is being a library for other corporations a BSD license is optimal. If your piece of software is going to run on desktops then GPL is your choice.
Transparency - You must write software in a transparent environment. Once you go open source there is no hidden secrets. You must explain everything you do, and what you are doing. This will piss off developers like no other
Developer Community - A strong developer community is required. This must be existing. Only about 5% of users contribute back to the project. If someone notices there haven't been any releases for a year they wont think "Wow, this piece of software is done," they will think "developers must of dumped it." Keep your developers working on it, even if it means they are costing you money.
Communications - You must make sure you community is able to communicate. They must be able to file bugs, discuss workarounds, and publish patches. Without feedback, it is pointless to opensource the project
Availability - Making your code easy to get is necessary, even if it means pissing off lawyers. You have to make sure your project is easy to download, and utilize. You don't want the user to have to jump through 18 nag screens and sign a contract in order to do this. You have to make things simple, and clean
I think that the single most important factor is the number of users that are using your project.
Otherwise its just a really well written, usefull and well documented bunch of stuff that sits on a server not doing very much...
To acquire contributors, you first need users, then you need some incompleteness. You need to trigger the "This is cool, but I really wish it had this or was different in this way." If you are missing an obvious feature, it's extremely likely a user will become a contributor to add it.
The most important thing is that the program be good. If its not good, nobody will use it. You cannot hope that the chicken-and-egg will reverse and that people will take it for granted until it becomes good.
Of course, "good" merely means "better than any other practical option for a significant number of people," it doesn't mean that its strictly the best, only that it has some features that make it, for many people, better than other options. Sometimes the program has no equivalent anywhere else, in which case there's almost no requirement in this regard.
When a program is good, people will use it. Obviously, it has to have a market among users--a good program that does something nobody wants isn't really good no matter how well its designed. One could make a point about marketing, but truly good products, up to a point, have a tendency to market themselves. Its much harder to promote something that isn't good, so clearly one's first priority should be the product itself, not promoting the product.
The real question then is--how do you make it good? And the answer to that is a dedicated, skilled development team. One person can rarely create a good product on their own; even if they're far better than the other developers, multiple perspectives has an incredibly useful effect on the project. This is why having corporate sponsors is so useful--it puts other developers' (from the corporation) minds on the problem to give their own opinion. This is especially useful in the case that developing the program requires significant expertise that isn't commonly available in the community.
Of course, I'm saying this all from experience. I'm one of the main developers on x264 (currently the most active one), one of the most popular video encoders. We have two main developers, various minor developers in the community that contribute patches, and corporate sponsorship from Joost (Gabriel Bouvigne, who maintains ratecontrol algorithms), from Avail Media (who I work for sometimes on contract and who are currently hiring coders on contract to add MBAFF interlacing support), and from a few others that pop up from time to time.
One good developer doesn't make a project--many good developers do. And the end result of this is a program that encodes video faster and at a far better quality than most commercial competitors, hardware or software, even those with utterly enormous development budgets.
In looking at these issues you might be interested in checking out the online version of a course on open source at UC Berkeley, called Open Source Development and Distribution of Digital Information: Technical, Economic, Social, and Legal Perspectives. It’s co-taught by Mitch Kapur (Lotus founder) and Paula Samuelson, a law school professor. I have a long commute and put the audio of the course on my iPod last year – they talk a lot about what works, what doesn’t and why, from a very broad (though obviously academic) perspective.
Books have been written on the subject. In fact, you can find a free book here: producing open source software
Really, I think the answer is 'how you run the project'.
All of your examples matter, yes, but the key things are how the interaction between developers is managed, how patches etc are handled/accepted, who's 'in charge' and how they handle that responsibility, and so on and so forth.
Compare and contrast (the history isn't hard to track down!) the management of the development of Class::DBI and DBIx::Class in Perl.
I was just reading tonight an excellent post on the usability aspect of successful vs unsuccessful open source projects.
Excerpt:
A lot of bandwidth has been wasted arguing over the lack of usability in open-source software/free software (henceforth “OSS”). The debate continues at this moment on blogs, forums, and Slashdot comment threads. Some people say that bad usability is endemic to the entire OSS world, while others say that OSS usability is great but that the real problem is the closed-minded users who expect every program to clone Microsoft. Some people contend that UI problems are temporary growing pains, while others say that the OSS development model systematically produces bad UI. Some people even argue that the GPL indirectly rewards software that’s difficult to use! (For the record, I disagree.)
http://humanized.com/weblog/2007/10/05/make_oss_humane/
Just open-source it. Most probably, nobody will start contributing yet. But at least you can write on the press-releases that your product is GPL or whatever.
The first step is that people start using it...
And maybe then, after users get comfortable, they will start contributing.
Everyone's answers have been good so far, but there's one thing missing and that's good oversight. Nothing kills an open source project faster than not having some sort of project management. Not to tell people what to do so much as to just add some structure and tasking for the developers you are hoping to attract.
Disorganized projects fall apart fast. It's not a bird you just let go and watch it fly away.