Hi Paul,
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 22:32 +0000, Paul wrote: > I wholeheartedly agree with this and would go a step further to say > that building the organization before you have the software or > collaborative "nidus" seems to be putting the cart before the horse. But there *IS* the nest. It is this community mailing list that has been in existence in one form or another since 1997/1998. > > The nature in which a non-profit evolves from an open source > collaborative effort is a complicated critter. At least in the case > of the OpenMRS project, it's hard for me to imagine how our non-profit > organization would have come prior to the work evolving as it had. In > many ways, we've shaped our structure based upon those who've > contributed and to facilitate their further growth. Exactly. The *work* has been evolving for nearly a decade. > However, if the mere mission of this organization is merely advocacy > for FOSS endeavors, then the paradigm might be different. This *IS* the point! In the US specifically but in the developed world in general. In the US we must use a different approach to promoting open source healthcare applications than we do in the developing world. Simply look at OpenMRS deployments. They are supported by NGOs that would never give money to deploy OpenMRS in Appalachia which is arguably poorer and more under served than some of the regions that the NGOs will support. The things that these other non-profits don't/can't do well is market FOSS applications in general. People like Will Ross have been very successful on a regional level but it takes more than one small group working on their project to have an impact against the corporate powers in the field across the country. *CAUTION* semi-political rant ahead! [okay, there is one but I decided to delete it for now and see if those things need to be said later] :-) > One of the primary ideas behind a meritocracy though, is to give > leadership authority to those who actually contribute. Having a real > project first gives the community an opportunity to truly assess such > things. Ahhhh, and the project behind door #1 is to promote the use of FOSS applications in healthcare settings in the developed world. I believe that Fred has taken a pragmatic view of how to start. That is to have this community NOMINATE people that should be part of the forming directors. There are no better experts in this area than the members of this mailing list. We should be able to nominate a half dozen or so to draft the original documents and start things off. >From there, the organization evolves. Does this make sense? Cheers, Tim > > Best, > -Paul > > --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, Martin Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There's a bit of chicken and egg here - it's difficult to say who > would best serve on BoD or BoA without knowing what the overall > purpose is - for example - I would say one potentially important > strategy is for a promotional and marketing exercise to promote the > message that it's 'ok' to do Open Source - it isn't a Marxist plot - > lets face it, Healthcare remains a very conservative industry and a > lot of folks get nervous around ways of doing things that aren't > gung-ho capitalism. But that means representation (possibly on both > boards) from the marketing and PR sector (Maybe I'm assuming here that > the suggestion is a healthcare-specific 'port' of the Open Source > Initiative). > > > > My own feeling is that perhaps you need to start of with a smaller > group (3, 4, maybe 5) of patrons (bad word, but best I can come up > with for the moment) to publish a manifesto that the boards can sign > up to. While the aim to maximise transparency so early is appropriate, > just like any OSS project - there's no community until there's > something to download. > > > > Having said that, once you have the Boards in place, please post > updates - I'd be happy to chip in with whatever contributions I can > offer. > > > > Martin > > > > Fred Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rod wrote: > > > I'd have a very hard time being interested without (at least > tentative) > > > answers to those questions up front. How can you not care if > another > > > perfectly good organization is already dedicated to the same > things? > > > > fair enough. Answers below: > > > > Tim wrote: > > > There is nothing wrong with this, it just appears to me that Fred > is > > > proposing a project neutral organization. > > > > I could not have said it better. But remember that "project neutral" > > does not mean the same thing as "merit neutral". Just because a > > project has a FOSS license does not mean that the FMSF should > blindly > > support it. Still I would hope to do things that will benefit > projects > > like OpenEMR. There are also things that the project focused > > foundations might be able to accomplish that the FMSF might have > > trouble with, things like narrowing in on one license in order to > > indemnify and protect contributing developers. This is the reason > that > > the Apache Foundation uses only the Apache License, doing that sort > of > > thing with several licenses becomes intractable. (Thanks for that > > insight Ryan) We might refer to foundations that exist to push a > > particular solution or license as 'Apache-foundation-style' groups; > > the community obviously needs such organizations and the FMSF would > > hope to work with these kinds of organizations. > > > > Tim wrote: > > > In this case the only > > > organization I can think of that it would be in any way in > competition > > > with is OSHCA. I believe that FMFS and OSHCA can be complimentary. > > > > That is our hope too. One important distinction is that FMSF will be > > US-Based and a 501c3. Obviously, having different vehicles for > > different projects could be advantageous. There are several projects > > that *I* hope to undertake that are impossible without 501c3 status, > > which is why we decided to start a new group, rather than work > through > > the committees of an existing group, which would slow us down. It is > > already taking way too long to get this up and going. > > > > The other thing that we will be handling differently than OSCHA is > the > > "conflict of interest" issue regarding the outside projects of board > > members. Instead of making a judgment about whether an individuals > > secondary interest is compatible with the foundation, we can include > > members who have potential conflicts by creating the non-voting > group > > of Board of Advisors. The idea is to create a space for hybrid > > players; like Misys or eMds, where the fact that they are not "pure" > > FOSS is not a problem. Also we want to able to include people like > Rod > > Roark, David Uhlman or VistA people or OpenMRS people who have very > > strong ties to particular projects, in a way that competing projects > > will have less of a problem with. Obviously, we can also move people > > back and forth between the voting BoD and the non-voting BoA, so if > I > > ever take up the role of project manager again, I would just give up > > my vote, and continue participating. > > > > Again, this is how *I* think this should work, but *I* will not be > > making the decisions about exactly what we are trying to accomplish. > > Once the FMSF is formed it will take its own direction, and you can > > count on it being different than what I am envisioning. I just want > to > > clarify what my personal intentions were and explain my own reasons > > for being involved. What I want to know from the community is what > do > > *you* think the FMSF should do? I have seen no nominations or > > volunteers for BOD members yet? Do not be shy.... > > > > -FT > > > > -- > > Fred Trotter > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook ************************************************************** *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* ************************************************************** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
