[okfn-discuss] Open Knowledge Foundation Strategy slides

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil.tolev at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Fully agreed. That's why a hackday could be a good way to investigate the
issues.

>
>
>>
>> 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".
>

I am assuming that some governments who promote or require F/OSS already do
this to some extent.


> 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.
>

I think the "why" is reflected in the current discussion.



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130722/fba1a501/attachment.html>