Another wave of Enterprise 2.0 definition has been kicked off by MR Rangaswami's otherwise good post on the trend. He defines it as enterprise software using the latest in technology, development and delivery methodologies. Andrew McAfee rightly brings it back to the original definition (Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.) and rightly points to the contributions of Ray Lane, Rod Boothby and Dion Hinchcliffe.
The funny thing is we have been through this before.
Through the end of 2002, the big debate was on defining social software. In conversations spinning off of this link (Matt rebuilt his blog so most backlinks have been taken out of the index) a great vetting occured that helped everyone understand what it was, but no single definition reached absolute concensus. Today's Wikipedia definition seems to be off the mark, but Meatball captures the points of view and since then there have been good posts that trace evolution. But I have to bring it back to the definition I contributed at the time we founded Socialtext:
Social Software adapts to its environment,
instead of requiring its environment to adapt to software.
My point back then was adaptation to both people and other systems required a different architecture and openness.
Today, Enterprise 2.0 needs more case studies beyond what Socialtext is achieving to give us more to talk about. The conversation will likely continue, along the way we will gain insight, and absolute concensus on a definition is not the post important thing. Like a standard, truth is in implementation.