From andyo at oreilly.com Tue Dec 1 08:59:36 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:59:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4B13BB2E.9030709@canonical.com> Message-ID: <12326329.521711259679576513.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> We seem to skipped some steps in the traditional development of a working group: although OSA as a whole has a mission statement, the acquisitions working group could benefit from its own mission statement. These activities seem time-consuming and bureaucratic, but they do help to get people excited about the group and help everyone focus on what is really important. I'm willing to go along, whether we focus on open source software or on the larger openness goal in government. Andy From john.pugh at canonical.com Tue Dec 1 09:30:48 2009 From: john.pugh at canonical.com (John M. Pugh) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:30:48 -0500 Subject: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <12326329.521711259679576513.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> References: <12326329.521711259679576513.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <4B1536A8.5070307@canonical.com> On 12/01/2009 09:59 AM, Andy Oram wrote: > We seem to have skipped some steps in the traditional development of a working group: although OSA as a whole has a mission statement, the acquisitions working group could benefit from its own mission statement. These activities seem time-consuming and bureaucratic, but they do help to get people excited about the group and help everyone focus on what is really important. I'm willing to go along, whether we focus on open source software or on the larger openness goal in government. > > Andy I strongly believe that we must align to what we want to accomplish in any task. You must have an end result in mind - like climbing a mountain or driving to a destination - there is an end result to are striving to accomplish. For starters the end result for the "report card" working group is to show the target audience how they are performing when it comes to the adoption of open source software. The path to that end result is through changing how open government occurs to the target audience. This is accomplished by using generative language to suggest or enroll them in new possibilities. I agree with Andy that the conversation is sided a bit too strongly on the side of open government without the proper correlation to generate the possibility mentioned earlier. Having not dug deeply into the acquisitions working group's role, I am not prepared to bring a message forward, but having read what Gunnar is attempting to accomplish I can intelligently describe a route I believe is appropriate. JP From Chris.Hankin at Sun.COM Tue Dec 1 11:08:36 2009 From: Chris.Hankin at Sun.COM (Chris Hankin) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:08:36 -0800 Subject: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4B1536A8.5070307@canonical.com> References: <12326329.521711259679576513.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <4B1536A8.5070307@canonical.com> Message-ID: <4B154D94.4070507@Sun.COM> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meinrath at newamerica.net Tue Dec 1 12:30:27 2009 From: meinrath at newamerica.net (Sascha Meinrath) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:30:27 -0500 Subject: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B1560C3.6020206@newamerica.net> Hi all, I've been lurking, but +1 to Andy's comment. This doesn't have to be any more complicated than a wiki, googledoc or other version-controled repository that we can all look at and tweak. But it will help focus our attentions. I also wonder if there's some sort of concrete project that we could work on together to get us started. I find that it's really helpful for building an organization to get started with some sweat equity from what'll emerge as the core leadership. In solidarity, --Sascha Meinrath Director, Open Technology Initiative New America Foundation > Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:59:36 -0500 (EST) > From: Andy Oram > To: "John M. Pugh" > Cc: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org, acquisitions-wg > > Subject: Re: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started > > We seem to skipped some steps in the traditional development of a working group: although OSA as a whole has a mission statement, the acquisitions working group could benefit from its own mission statement. These activities seem time-consuming and bureaucratic, but they do help to get people excited about the group and help everyone focus on what is really important. I'm willing to go along, whether we focus on open source software or on the larger openness goal in government. > > Andy From gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com Tue Dec 1 14:02:42 2009 From: gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com (Gunnar Hellekson) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:02:42 -0500 Subject: [report-card] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4B1560C3.6020206@newamerica.net> References: <4B1560C3.6020206@newamerica.net> Message-ID: <20091201200242.GB9296@redhat.com> Although Andy's comments referred to the acquisition group, I think it's valid for the report card as well. And Sascha, you're right on the money. I've taken the liberty of dropping the (contentious) text I sent earlier into this Google Doc: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATxnOozsvYvlZGhzcmY2ZjhfMTFkd3JueGQ4ZA&hl=en So there's a place to start. While we have a mandate from the steering committee that the "open source" report card should be part of a larger and ostensibly more relevant "open government" report card, I recognize that's not necessarily what everyone's interested in right now. So for the time being, let's focus on what we'd like to measure to determine an agencies successful adoption of open source software. Is that a good start? g On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 01:30:27PM -0500, Sascha Meinrath wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been lurking, but +1 to Andy's comment. This doesn't have to be any more > complicated than a wiki, googledoc or other version-controled repository that we > can all look at and tweak. But it will help focus our attentions. I also > wonder if there's some sort of concrete project that we could work on together > to get us started. I find that it's really helpful for building an organization > to get started with some sweat equity from what'll emerge as the core leadership. > > In solidarity, > > --Sascha Meinrath > Director, Open Technology Initiative > New America Foundation > > > Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:59:36 -0500 (EST) > > From: Andy Oram > > To: "John M. Pugh" > > Cc: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org, acquisitions-wg > > > > Subject: Re: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started > > > > We seem to skipped some steps in the traditional development of a working group: although OSA as a whole has a mission statement, the acquisitions working group could benefit from its own mission statement. These activities seem time-consuming and bureaucratic, but they do help to get people excited about the group and help everyone focus on what is really important. I'm willing to go along, whether we focus on open source software or on the larger openness goal in government. > > > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > report-card mailing list > report-card at opensourceforamerica.org > http://opensourceforamerica.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/report-card -- Gunnar Hellekson, RHCE Lead Architect, Red Hat Government From andyo at oreilly.com Wed Dec 23 19:25:57 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:25:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [report-card] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <20091201200242.GB9296@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20758424.97261261617957122.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> I just went back to this mail and realized it came out one week before the highly publicized "open government initiative directive" from the White House. It seems that--if OSA gets involved in open government, which is not yet firmly established--the document Gunnar pointed to should be updated to reflect the directive. I may have some time over the coming holiday period to make some changes, if there's support in OSA for this. Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gunnar Hellekson" To: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 3:02:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [report-card] Getting Started Although Andy's comments referred to the acquisition group, I think it's valid for the report card as well. And Sascha, you're right on the money. I've taken the liberty of dropping the (contentious) text I sent earlier into this Google Doc: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATxnOozsvYvlZGhzcmY2ZjhfMTFkd3JueGQ4ZA&hl=en So there's a place to start. While we have a mandate from the steering committee that the "open source" report card should be part of a larger and ostensibly more relevant "open government" report card, I recognize that's not necessarily what everyone's interested in right now. So for the time being, let's focus on what we'd like to measure to determine an agencies successful adoption of open source software. Is that a good start? g On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 01:30:27PM -0500, Sascha Meinrath wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been lurking, but +1 to Andy's comment. This doesn't have to be any more > complicated than a wiki, googledoc or other version-controled repository that we > can all look at and tweak. But it will help focus our attentions. I also > wonder if there's some sort of concrete project that we could work on together > to get us started. I find that it's really helpful for building an organization > to get started with some sweat equity from what'll emerge as the core leadership. > > In solidarity, > > --Sascha Meinrath > Director, Open Technology Initiative > New America Foundation > > > Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:59:36 -0500 (EST) > > From: Andy Oram > > To: "John M. Pugh" > > Cc: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org, acquisitions-wg > > > > Subject: Re: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started > > > > We seem to skipped some steps in the traditional development of a working group: although OSA as a whole has a mission statement, the acquisitions working group could benefit from its own mission statement. These activities seem time-consuming and bureaucratic, but they do help to get people excited about the group and help everyone focus on what is really important. I'm willing to go along, whether we focus on open source software or on the larger openness goal in government. > > > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > report-card mailing list > report-card at opensourceforamerica.org > http://opensourceforamerica.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/report-card -- Gunnar Hellekson, RHCE Lead Architect, Red Hat Government _______________________________________________ report-card mailing list report-card at opensourceforamerica.org http://opensourceforamerica.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/report-card -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Chris.Hankin at Sun.COM Thu Dec 24 09:30:12 2009 From: Chris.Hankin at Sun.COM (chris hankin) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:30:12 -0500 Subject: [report-card] Report Card -- new interim step Message-ID: <4B338904.5080001@sun.com> All: With the Administration's issuance last month of its Open Government Directive , Tom and I quickly came to agreement that while the report card project should go forward, we need to insert a new interim step. We would first like to issue a set of "Principles for Open Government Plans," to help guide the different agencies as they each seek to publish their mandated Open Government Plan by the April 7^th due date. Our expectation would be to issue this set of principles the first week of February, thus providing the agencies with sufficient time to take it into account. To do so, we should have a draft ready to share with the full OSfA membership by Jan 8th, and give them a few weeks to supply input. And so Gunnar, Tom, and I worked on a first cut - its at http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATxnOozsvYvlZGhzcmY2ZjhfMTJoZGh2cWhjcA&hl=en, and attached. Please give us your thoughts and edits over the holidays. Following publication of our principles, we would then return to the set of metrics/questions that we would intend to use to grade the agencies late this spring, following the April 7^th launch of their Open Government Plans. Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: open gov principles v1.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 16334 bytes Desc: not available URL: From andyo at oreilly.com Thu Dec 24 10:41:55 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:41:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [report-card] Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst puts out RFP on "The politics of open source" In-Reply-To: <14672281.98601261672881129.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <7662366.98621261672915645.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Someone who's in New England or willing to travel may find it worth submitting a paper. In fact, I think OSA should collaborate on submitting a paper and choose someone to present it: http://www.umass.edu/jitp/ Andy From ean at brainfood.com Thu Dec 24 10:59:53 2009 From: ean at brainfood.com (Ean Schuessler) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:59:53 -0600 Subject: [report-card] Report Card -- new interim step In-Reply-To: <4B338904.5080001@sun.com> References: <4B338904.5080001@sun.com> Message-ID: <4B339E09.6040706@brainfood.com> How do I even get a copy of OSCMIS? The OSSI site asks for your name but then dumps you into the mailman admin screens. Why do they have to ask for your name? chris hankin wrote: > All: > With the Administration's issuance last month of its Open Government > Directive > , > Tom and I quickly came to agreement that while the report card > project should go forward, we need to insert a new interim step. We > would first like to issue a set of "Principles for Open Government > Plans," to help guide the different agencies as they each seek to > publish their mandated Open Government Plan by the April 7^th due > date. Our expectation would be to issue this set of principles the > first week of February, thus providing the agencies with sufficient > time to take it into account. > > To do so, we should have a draft ready to share with the full OSfA > membership by Jan 8th, and give them a few weeks to supply input. And > so Gunnar, Tom, and I worked on a first cut - its at > http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATxnOozsvYvlZGhzcmY2ZjhfMTJoZGh2cWhjcA&hl=en, > and attached. Please give us your thoughts and edits over the holidays. > > Following publication of our principles, we would then return to the > set of metrics/questions that we would intend to use to grade the > agencies late this spring, following the April 7^th launch of their > Open Government Plans. From andyo at oreilly.com Tue Dec 29 21:39:02 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:39:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [report-card] Preparations for conference presentation and other OSA work Message-ID: <6130640.111821262144342573.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> After participating for a few weeks on several OSA lists, I felt that the volunteers on these lists needed some guidelines for moving forward. I'd like to ask for all your help in making some basic definitions and plans. I'm posting this message during a holiday period (a bad time to ask for help from some people, but an especially good time for others) because I want to put together a proposal to present a session about OSA's work at an upcoming conference (which I already posted to this list: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, May 6-7, http://www.umass.edu/jitp/) and the deadline for submissions is January 10. I think some definitions around which we need clarity include: * What is an open standard? To illustrate the importance of this question, just look at the confusion around OOXML, which I trust would not be considered an open standard or even a viable standard by the members of this list. * How do government agencies evaluate free software for adoption? There are certainly precedents in both government and business. * Is it useful to acquire free software in a context that imposes restrictions, such as Red Hat's contracts (which restrict changes and installations of new software), mobile devices that are locked down (remember that mobile devices are growing in importance in many organizations), or trusted computer systems (also likely to become mainstream)? * Given that conventional TCO and ROI calculations don't account for many of the potential benefits and costs of migration to free software, what financial and qualitative guidelines can we offer for making the decision? I now have some questions for organizers who are close to the OSA center: * Have the questions I've asked been answered already? * Are there people on these mailing lists who work in government and deal directly with the issues I've talked about, such as acquisition? Are there advisors or lobbyists on these lists who interact closely with such government staff? * Are there people in OSA officially tasked with making presentations such as the one I mentioned ? Regarding recent documents circulated on these lists about transparency in government: I think these are fine, and I don't want anyone to doubt that I see the value of transparency. In fact, I can show my commitment to it through a series I wrote on that topic last summer: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/06/personal-democracy-forum-ramp-.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/06/personal-democracy-forum-ramp--1.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/06/personal-democracy-forum-ramp--2.html I just think we can be most helpful by starting at square one with background on open source, such as the questions I listed at the start of this email. I ask you all to help with that, and I ask the organizers of OSA to enhance the organization's transparency by answering the questions I asked concerning the organization. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------