On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil.to...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On 22 July 2013 09:49, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@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
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss