[okfn-discuss] Open Knowledge Foundation Strategy slides

Mon Jul 22 10:25:43 UTC 2013

On 22 July 2013 09:49, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I am sympathetic to this concern. I don't think we can be universal, but I
> think it could be useful to detail and publish the different components.
> Questions that would be relevant:
>
> * is there an existing F/OSS solution?
> * if yes, is it readily usable by experts? If yes, how much training,
> tutorial is required for community use?
> * if no, it is high priority that one should be developed? if yes, is the
> OKF the right place (resources, community), to do this? If we can't can we
> still give the world a lead (e.g. by initial design and advocacy)
>

Agreed. The very evaluation of this can be significant work however. That
is not to say that it isn't worthwhile or there aren't people in this
community (incl. me) who would do it, but that we should be careful to
collect the answers to these questions in a somewhat structured way.

> We would need to answer these questions for a wide range of activities -
> some examples:
>  * slides
>  * editing/creating documents
>  * conferencing
>  * calendars
>  * data extraction and analysis
>  * repositories and knowledge bases
>  * graphics
>
> .. and probably > 20 more
>

The Free Software Foundation's directory may be of use to such an
initiative:
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page#Free_software_to_use_for_...

> A summary of these, with the issues would be of enormous value to the
> world. We could get a good start in a hackday. Out of this could then come
> a list of the areas where we could make most impact (coding, advocacy,
> customisation, etc.). We might also develop an "Open Audit" for OKF ( do
> other organisations do this?).
>

That's a very nice point... I haven't heard of it, and I suspect that you
may be told that a use case for this hasn't really existed before. Why
would a company or even a foundation want to prove how much FLOSS it uses?
It just hasn't been a "thing", definitely not one to prioritise anyway. As
always, we should probably go for "use FLOSS and track your usage of
proprietary software because this is how it will benefit your main goals
and it's interesting" instead of "certify yourself open because shame on
you otherwise".

So, I'll give this a shot for the OKF, though I'm sure others here can do a
much better job. The OKF should use FLOSS alternatives where possible
because:

 * Its core community prefers using such tools. Making a cohesive community
is difficult, anything that unites it more is welcome and translates into
"real" value for the organisation.
 * It wants to build up expertise in enabling the world via open knowledge,
most of the time through technology. Office and other collaborative work is
a huge part of total human endeavour. Trying it ourselves, or at least
tracking the state of FLOSS in this area, will be helpful to many.
 * It sets an ideological example. While it is true that the OKF is not
"fanatic", there's very real practical value in showcasing how "it can be
done" to other non-profits and even for-profits. Human interest is
important, and there's no denying the appeal of FLOSS to people.

These don't tell me why the OKF should track its own usage of FLOSS though
(a la open audit), just how using it more may help our goals.

Greetings,
Emanuil

P.S. Also, if we do evaluate FLOSS alternatives, it'd be essential to
include the value of centralised services that Friedrich discusses. At
least then we'll have a clear view of exactly what's missing and preventing
us from using such alternatives. This can give clear goals to existing
projects and generate clear, sharp ideas of what pieces of software are
missing (e.g. SaaS is definitely lacking, but we do have MediaGoblin, the
*software* for SaaS image and video hosting).

To give my own example, I am keen to develop Open content mining of the
> (STEM) literature. There are some closed commercial tools which I would
> never use ((lack of) functionality, extensibility, redistributability,
> money, opaqueness of algorithm, etc.) and anyway they don't do what we want
> to. So we have to develop our own. The good news is that:
>  * there are a number of F/OSS libraries (PDFReaders, image analysis,
> natural language processing).
>  * we are developing a critical mass of community.
>  * the result will have a big impact
>
> The major reason for doing this is to liberate the content that exists in
> the scientific literature. Many publishers will claim the content is
> "theirs". I and others in OKF challenge this. So the approach is manyfold:
>  * political (and Ross Mounce and I have spent much time in purely
> political issues).
>  * advocacy and growing the community.
>  * writing code
>  * creating Open corpora
>  * customising resources and software.
>
> We have very limited resources. So if I have to choose between developing
> software for content mining  and learning how to install and run an Open
> Word alternative I spend my time on the former. But I support those trying
> to promote Open document editors. And I will switch *when the Open
> community makes it simple and cost-effective to do so*. Similarly with
> Skype, Google-stuff, etc.
>
> Changing to F/OSS will take time and resources. I am sure that there are
> some easy transitions to F/OSS that we can make if they are identified *and
> have community support*.  I'd certainly come to a hackathon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes, thank you Diane. It is very clear, and I somewhat agree with you. I
>> agree that open communities should use open source *to the extent
>> practical*, and I don't think open source will disappear if open
>> communities do use non-open services.
>>
>> But, instead of getting into an argument about it, an argument that
>> generally has no end, I do want to say that I agree with the spirit of your
>> statement. To the extent practical, we *should* use and support open
>> source, because then others can build upon our work and we upon the the
>> works of others.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Diane Mercier <diane.mercier at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry for my poor english.
>> > Gitorious.org is completely open source.
>> > Open community should adopt open source like gitorious.org instead
>> privative SaaS (e.g. Github or Google).
>> > If Open community use privative SaaS (e.g. Github or Google, etc.) than
>> open source (e.g. gitorious.org, etc.) will disappear.
>> >
>> > Is this clear?
>> >
>> > Why OKFN choose Google Drive, Github, etc. instead contribute to open
>> source development and adoption.
>> >
>> > DM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 2013-07-21 13:11, Mr. Puneet Kishor a écrit :
>> >> On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Diane Mercier <diane.mercier at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Or join communities of developers until these Open tools disappear
>> purchased or removal by the SaaS of this world, for example gitorious.org
>> >> I want to understand the above sentence better. Are  you saying that
>> gitorious.org *has* either disappeared, purchased or removed, or are you
>> saying that gitourious.org is an "SaaS of this world" that will purchase
>> or remove "Open tools"?
>> >>
>> >> Afaict, gitorious is completely open source (offered under a GNU
>> Affero GPL).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Puneet Kishor
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130722/0ff9e4e3/attachment.html>