Recently, the topic of DevRel maturity sparked a conversation: What qualities define a mature community and a seasoned team? Join PJ, Jason, Mary, and Wesley as they share their insights on past experiences, current trends shaping the field, and key indicators to monitor as you strive to build a thriving, successful community.
Topics Discussed:
Introduction to the Concept of Maturity in DevRel and Community Programs:
Mary Thengvall introduces the topic of maturity in community programs, DevRel teams, and broader community growth, asking the co-hosts for their views on what it means for a program or team to be “mature.”
The discussion explores maturity from different perspectives: internal community management, external community engagement, and the use of data in measuring maturity.
The Definition of Maturity:
PJ Haggerty argues that the term “mature” is often used ambiguously, similar to how the word "enterprise" is applied. He suggests that DevRel programs may be mistakenly seen as mature just by having a larger team, but he disagrees with this simplistic view.
Wesley Faulkner offers multiple angles for assessing maturity:
Internal maturity: Does the company have seasoned community managers, strong goals, clear expectations, and good internal collaboration across departments?
External maturity: Does the community have a consistent base of returning members, active engagement, and is it large enough to support initiatives like ambassador programs or moderator roles?
Scalability: A mature community allows for growth, enabling more opportunities for collaboration, feedback, and scaling programs effectively.
Maturity in the Context of Company History:
Mary Thengvall reflects on the significant data her company, Kamunda, has accumulated since 2013. She points out that while having 11 years of data seems like a huge advantage, it only becomes truly valuable if it is actionable. She emphasizes that being able to use data to make decisions is a key sign of a mature program.
Jason Hand stresses that merely collecting data without acting on it is a waste, and processes need to be built around data to drive positive outcomes. He highlights that having a clear vision and goals is integral to creating a mature team and community.
Challenges in Community Maturity:
PJ Haggerty contrasts the maturity of external communities. He shares his experience with the Ruby and Rails community, which was once immature but matured as the open-source community grew. The challenge is that a community’s maturity cannot exist in isolation — it depends on the external community's growth alongside the internal team’s development.
The maturity of community data also plays a critical role. Mary Thengvall questions whether it is possible to continue calling a community mature if much of its active base has shifted or churned due to evolving products or other factors.
Evaluating and Using Data:
The episode explores the effectiveness of metrics used to evaluate community programs. PJ Haggerty criticizes Net Promoter Score (NPS) as outdated and unreliable, especially in the current context where personal interactions (such as with a developer advocate) might skew the score.
Wesley Faulkner discusses how metrics can be “Uberfied,” meaning that overly simplistic metrics like star ratings may not accurately reflect the quality of engagement within a community.
Mary Thengvall discusses the importance of understanding the purpose behind collecting metrics. Are metrics gathered for the sake of collection, or do they inform decisions about program improvements?
The Evolution of Community Programs:
Jason Hand emphasizes that community maturity is a moving target. Teams and priorities evolve, and practices that were considered best practices a few years ago may no longer hold true. Maturity is not a one-time achievement but a continuous process of adaptation.
Mary Thengvall adds that there’s a difference between having a mature program that runs smoothly with minimal manua