From andyo at oreilly.com Tue Nov 3 10:26:50 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:26:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [acquisitions-wg] Seeking report from Nov. 5 Government Open Source Conference Message-ID: <18546831.131371257265610241.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> If anyone on this list is attending this, or knows someone who is, it would be great to post a report to this list: http://goscon.org/ It seems to cover motivations for adopting open source, and how to manage the process. Andy From greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 11:55:37 2009 From: greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:55:37 -0500 Subject: [acquisitions-wg] Seeking report from Nov. 5 Government Open Source Conference In-Reply-To: <18546831.131371257265610241.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> References: <18546831.131371257265610241.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Andy Oram wrote: > If anyone on this list is attending this, or knows someone who is, it would be great to post a report to this list: > > ?http://goscon.org/ > > It seems to cover motivations for adopting open source, and how to manage the process. I'll be there, and will post my notes to the list. --g From andyo at oreilly.com Fri Nov 6 21:40:31 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:40:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [acquisitions-wg] Tracking related resources and projects In-Reply-To: <8878904.66011256815612021.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <3781122.210491257565231219.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Some mail I've received over the past few days have shown that this working group needs to be richly hooked in to efforts going on in the US and elsewhere to bring open source into government. For instance, I happened to find out about yesterdays Government Open Source conference (GOSCON) and found that someone on the list attended. We need notes from that meeting. Another member of the list showed me a document produced in Germany to help government agencies adhere to appropriate open standards in procurement; it had some useful passages defining what makes a standard open and setting up procedures for evaluating products. Obviously, we'll get where we want to go faster if we can build on work done by others. And we should time and press our agenda in ways that mesh well with what governments are already doing. For this we need to go out, find the resources, and talk to the people who are working on similar goals. Andy From john.pugh at canonical.com Sat Nov 7 05:43:15 2009 From: john.pugh at canonical.com (John M. Pugh) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:43:15 -0500 Subject: [acquisitions-wg] Tracking related resources and projects In-Reply-To: <3781122.210491257565231219.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> References: <3781122.210491257565231219.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <4AF55D53.9070908@canonical.com> On 11/06/2009 10:40 PM, Andy Oram wrote: > Some mail I've received over the past few days have shown that this working group needs to be richly hooked in to efforts going on in the US and elsewhere to bring open source into government. For instance, I happened to find out about yesterdays Government Open Source conference (GOSCON) and found that someone on the list attended. We need notes from that meeting. Another member of the list showed me a document produced in Germany to help government agencies adhere to appropriate open standards in procurement; it had some useful passages defining what makes a standard open and setting up procedures for evaluating products. > > Obviously, we'll get where we want to go faster if we can build on work done by others. And we should time and press our agenda in ways that mesh well with what governments are already doing. For this we need to go out, find the resources, and talk to the people who are working on similar goals. Wow Andy, your zimbra client doesn't put any soft returns into the message... The one missing is how to easily gather this information for dissemination. I did start a google site [1] if that is of interest and/or would be happy to host something personally if there are other options. I could setup an alfresco image or we can find a service that provides a better management paradigm. If a wiki suffices, then maybe google sites will suffice? Absent of that we are limited to what we have in this list and that limits us to what we have at our fingertips at any given moment. There will be TONs of information at the federal and local levels as there are initiatives in play in every governmental nook and cranny around the world. [1] http://sites.google.com/site/acquisitionswg/ JP From greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com Sat Nov 7 09:23:46 2009 From: greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:23:46 -0500 Subject: [acquisitions-wg] Tracking related resources and projects In-Reply-To: <4AF55D53.9070908@canonical.com> References: <3781122.210491257565231219.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <4AF55D53.9070908@canonical.com> Message-ID: Stupid Google client, not replying-all by default... I was at GOSCON, tweeting away. I'll put together some notes this week. It should be noted that David A. Wheeler, the nominal leader of this working group, was one of the speakers on Thursday. He's got some participation issues to sort out, I believe -- but his time is coming soon. --g From davidlopezberzosa at googlemail.com Wed Nov 4 01:40:48 2009 From: davidlopezberzosa at googlemail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_L=F3pez?=) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:40:48 +0100 Subject: [acquisitions-wg] open (and interoperable) standards in Germany Message-ID: <28c14eff0911032340q2bd335f8i86a3127e3a8be87d@mail.gmail.com> Dear all: Regarding interoperability I forgot to mention a great initiative, conducted by the German administration, defining standards compliance for vendors willing to provide ICT services to german administrations. It is called SAGA: http://www.cio.bund.de/DE/Standards/SAGA/saga_node.html There is an English (or American :) version document: http://www.cio.bund.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/744400/publicationFile/40454/saga_4_0_englisch_download.pdf;jsessionid=F48384A4B32847AB9ACAF1A56FB5D538 It has been three years since I last reviewed this initiative but the most interesting features were: 1- Structured approach to ICT provisioning in public administrations. 2- Smart approach to adapt public administrations to new standards. They did so by implementing a reviewing process similar to a state machine: At state 0 a given standard is not valid, at state 1 is under consideration, at state 2 is is valid and permanent, at state 3 is obsolete and thus to be removed in the short term, at state 4 is forbidden .... I find this approach smart as it invalidates certain vendors claiming that standards hinder innovation. Under SAGA approach if you come up with a new technology you just need to apply for conformance and wait for the experts group to validate it (and make sure your technology is really interoperable with existing ones). I hope it helps. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidlopezberzosa at googlemail.com Wed Nov 4 01:48:59 2009 From: davidlopezberzosa at googlemail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_L=F3pez?=) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:48:59 +0100 Subject: [acquisitions-wg] source of information for european initiatives on eServices Message-ID: <28c14eff0911032348x4af37147n18f94d1ef63b7cb0@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone. Perhaps this URL may be of interest to you: http://www.epractice.eu/ It is a European Union (EU) sponsored initiative aimed at disseminating ICT projects being conducted in public administrations. I believe it is a good source to check what's going on across the Atlantic :) Regards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andyo at oreilly.com Sun Nov 22 20:35:13 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:35:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [acquisitions-wg] [report-card] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <33087312.313041258203524297.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Although I care a great deal about open government as well as open source, I'm also confused because the questions posted beow on openness are only tangentially related to open source software. I thought OSA was focused on the adoption of open source software, and your list of questions is taking you pretty far into other territory. Is there an explanation online of the relationship between transparency/participation and the adoption of open source software? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gunnar Hellekson" To: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:58:12 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [report-card] Getting Started Friends -- We've spoken to some of you individually, or as a group, about this project. We've received some very excellent ideas for content and how to roll this out, and now we'd like to start in earnest. ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Oram O'Reilly Media email: andyo at oreilly.com Editor 10 Fawcett Street, Fourth Floor voice: 617-499-7479 Cambridge, MA 02138-1175, USA fax: 617-661-1116 identi.ca/twitter:praxagora http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com Wed Nov 25 09:43:52 2009 From: gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com (Gunnar Hellekson) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:43:52 -0500 Subject: [acquisitions-wg] [report-card] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> References: <33087312.313041258203524297.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <20091125154351.GC13520@redhat.com> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote: > Although I care a great deal about open government as well as open > source, I'm also confused because the questions posted beow on openness > are only tangentially related to open source software. I thought OSA > was focused on the adoption of open source software, and your list of > questions is taking you pretty far into other territory. Is there an > explanation online of the relationship between transparency/participation > and the adoption of open source software? That's a great question, Andy. I realize that I didn't give as full a background as I should have. If we do a report card that's about open source software specifically, it will be more difficult to gain traction with the agencies. This is because most agencies don't understand why open source software is important. They do, however, understand that open government is important. They're looking for ways to demonstrate progress against the Open Government memo issued in January. So if we have a broad tent, we can ensure that open source software is part of any discussion about open government. Put another way, having a broader coalition with open government groups ensures that open source software is seen to be as relevant as, say, transparency or open standards. Also, to be self-serving, a broader scope to the report card means that more people are available to help. So that's why the questions address Open Government, rather than just open source software. Is this approach sensible? Are there other questions we should be asking the agencies? Are there other organizations who'd be willing to collaborate on this project? g -- Gunnar Hellekson, RHCE Lead Architect, Red Hat Government > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gunnar Hellekson" > To: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:58:12 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [report-card] Getting Started > > Friends -- > > We've spoken to some of you individually, or as a group, about this > project. We've received some very excellent ideas for content and how to > roll this out, and now we'd like to start in earnest. > > ... > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Andy Oram O'Reilly Media email: andyo at oreilly.com > Editor 10 Fawcett Street, Fourth Floor voice: 617-499-7479 > Cambridge, MA 02138-1175, USA fax: 617-661-1116 > identi.ca/twitter:praxagora http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > report-card mailing list > report-card at opensourceforamerica.org > http://opensourceforamerica.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/report-card From john.pugh at canonical.com Mon Nov 30 06:31:42 2009 From: john.pugh at canonical.com (John M. Pugh) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:31:42 -0500 Subject: [acquisitions-wg] [report-card] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <20091125154351.GC13520@redhat.com> References: <33087312.313041258203524297.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <20091125154351.GC13520@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4B13BB2E.9030709@canonical.com> On 11/25/2009 10:43 AM, Gunnar Hellekson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote: >> Although I care a great deal about open government as well as open >> source, I'm also confused because the questions posted beow on openness >> are only tangentially related to open source software. I thought OSA >> was focused on the adoption of open source software, and your list of >> questions is taking you pretty far into other territory. Is there an >> explanation online of the relationship between transparency/participation >> and the adoption of open source software? > > That's a great question, Andy. I realize that I didn't give as full a > background as I should have. > > If we do a report card that's about open source software specifically, it will > be more difficult to gain traction with the agencies. This is because most > agencies don't understand why open source software is important. They do, > however, understand that open government is important. They're looking for > ways to demonstrate progress against the Open Government memo issued in > January. So if we have a broad tent, we can ensure that open source software > is part of any discussion about open government. > > Put another way, having a broader coalition with open government groups > ensures that open source software is seen to be as relevant as, say, > transparency or open standards. > > Also, to be self-serving, a broader scope to the report card means that more > people are available to help. > > So that's why the questions address Open Government, rather than just open > source software. > > Is this approach sensible? Are there other questions we should be asking the > agencies? Are there other organizations who'd be willing to collaborate on > this project? I haven't had time to spend a significant amount of time "noodling" on the questions, but they seem to be more focused on open government directly vs being focused on the role of open government on open source software (or vice-versa) as Andy mentions and that seems to conflict with the "expected" mission of the group. However, I have not seen the outcome that is trying to be created here. It seems that this group is wanting to find a way to show progress on open source software usage in government - if that is the outcome, then the questions miss the mark. My questions back to the team: What is the outcome you are trying to create? Who is the target of the questions (technical, administrative, etc)? Are the questions going to be "re-used" on a regular basis? I would imagine that the best route to get started is to simply gather a baseline of what is used (and the level of detail appropriate to the target) and use that as a mechanism for comparing what alternatives are available (provided the outcome being created is aligned) then use generative language to show how well that is aligned to open government. JP