Re: [openhealth] Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
I strongly suggest that you work with Dr.Bowen that already runs a non-profit, oemr.org, for FOSS in healthcare, to avoid splintering efforts. If I remember correctly, there was an attack on 'patientOS' with the same reasoning. Regards, balu raman office manager ryder brook pediatrics morrisville, vt 05661 Fred Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, We are starting a 501c3 non-profit foundation to advance FOSS in healthcare. Here is our mission statement: To improve the quality of healthcare through the advancement of Free and Open Source Medical Software. The Free Medical Software Foundation will encourage the use of Free and Open Source software by sponsoring development, education and Health IT initiatives. So far this is a project that both I and Ignacio Valdes have committed to. In order to make the FMSF as transparent as possible, Ignacio and I will be taking public nominations for Board of Directors and Board of Advisers positions. We have already invited people we know we want to be involved in the BOD, and we will potentially pass on nominations without giving any reasons for doing so. However, we want the communities input even at this initial stage. For all BOD and BOA members, we have a preference for either technical expertise, or clinical expertise. We also strongly prefer 'do'ers to 'talk'ers. We like short meetings. BOD members: Must be committed to the FOSS health software movement as a whole, as opposed to being associated strongly with a particular project or company. We hope that the BOD members will be well-known community members who instantly command respect. BOD members will get a formal vote on the actions of FMSF. BOA members: Are committed to the advancement of a particular project or effort within the community. We will be inviting people who are associated with either proprietary and FOSS companies, but who are making a significant contribution to health FOSS in some fashion. BOA will not get a vote on the actions of FMSF. Now, I am sure many of you will wonder What exactly should this organization do? or Is this organization in competition with organization X? I have specific answers to none of those types of questions. Ignacio and I have several initiatives that are critically important to the community that do not work well without a non-profit behind them. We will be supporting and/or hosting conferences. We will pursing funding for the purposes of sponsoring development on important projects. Besides that, we want to have an organization that can be used to scratch our collective FOSS in healthcare itch. What else that will mean will depend in large part on who you suggest as BOD members. So, this is not an opportunity to discuss what the FMSF will be doing, as much as who gets to make that decision. In short, who does the community at large trust. Who represents our communities ideals and values? Who would therefore make a good BOD member? What projects are important enough that we should invite their community members specifically to the BOA? Feel free to nominate or volunteer now. Please give some detail on why you would make a good candidate. -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com === In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place. - Carlos Santana Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my creator, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.) - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
On Feb 16, 2008, at 9:31 AM, balu raman wrote: I strongly suggest that you work with Dr.Bowen that already runs a non-profit, oemr.org, for FOSS in healthcare, to avoid splintering efforts. If I remember correctly, there was an attack on 'patientOS' with the same reasoning. Regards, balu raman office manager ryder brook pediatrics morrisville, vt 05661 I'm not familiar OEMR, but if it stands for Open EMR, isn't that a particular product? In any case, I don't think anyone has a moral right to insist that anyone wanting to work in the area of open source medical applications do so under the aegis of their organization. I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. --Attributed to Confucius, 500 BCE [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
Hi All, On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 09:59 -0800, Gregory Woodhouse wrote: I'm not familiar OEMR, but if it stands for Open EMR, isn't that a particular product? In any case, I don't think anyone has a moral right to insist that anyone wanting to work in the area of open source medical applications do so under the aegis of their organization. I agree. I have worked with Dr. Bowen in the past and it was a great experience but it seems that the interest of the OEMR organization is very tightly centered around OpenEMR much like the FreeMED Foundation (another non-profit) is centered around promoting FreeMED and the openEHR Foundation has a mandate to support and protect the use and distribution of the openEHR specifications and software. There is nothing wrong with this, it just appears to me that Fred is proposing a project neutral organization. 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. Over the past 10 years or so we have seen a huge growth in this area. In terms of interest and international funding for projects. But we are still VERY MUCH in the embryonic stages. Many analogies apply here; Let a thousand flowers bloom, A rising tide floats all boats, etc. Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees when you are on the ground. Let us mature together as an industry. I suggest that we support Fred's efforts. There are significant efforts involved in this venture. FMFS may succeed or it may fail. But we can and will all learn along the way. Bruce Perens recently wrote basically a history of open source since he and Eric Raymond defined the term in February 1998 and started the Open Source Initiative (sorry no link at hand). He (and I) marveled at far we have come in Decade 0. I believe that OSI was significant in this growth. It took time, energy and money (and marketing) to make things happen. Maybe FMFS can be that organization for healthcare? Regards, Tim -- 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]
Re: [openhealth] Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
Hi All, May be, I should not believe everything I read on oemr.org's stated goals as a non-profit. I don't know if oemr.org is solely setup as a non-profit for openemr product alone. We have been using openemr in our practice for the past 3 years and it has worked out well. That does not mean that there are not other FOSS products, equally good, or better. What I would like to see is many more FOSS products in the health field, which are CCHIT certified, other than OpenVista/WorldVista (which ever is right). I feel we have lost some opportunities in my own backyard (Vermont) because of the lack of this CCHIT certification. I do my share of FOSS activism and I did what I could to convince VITL(vitl.net) to look at FOSS. VITL seems to be blessed by the state(VT) legislature, and getting funded. They have just released their own preselected vendor list for Vermont doctors. You will not find any FOSS products. It is a well known fact that Vermont doctors cannot afford the current EMR products, and the only solution seems to be give away grants to these practices, and the proprietary vendors are waiting like vultures. There is absolutely ZERO open source in all these. Everyone seems to be happy, in the short term, except me. May be, I have done a lousy job :-) balu raman office manager ryder brook pediatrics morrisville, vt 05661 Tim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 09:59 -0800, Gregory Woodhouse wrote: I'm not familiar OEMR, but if it stands for Open EMR, isn't that a particular product? In any case, I don't think anyone has a moral right to insist that anyone wanting to work in the area of open source medical applications do so under the aegis of their organization. I agree. I have worked with Dr. Bowen in the past and it was a great experience but it seems that the interest of the OEMR organization is very tightly centered around OpenEMR much like the FreeMED Foundation (another non-profit) is centered around promoting FreeMED and the openEHR Foundation has a mandate to support and protect the use and distribution of the openEHR specifications and software. There is nothing wrong with this, it just appears to me that Fred is proposing a project neutral organization. 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. Over the past 10 years or so we have seen a huge growth in this area. In terms of interest and international funding for projects. But we are still VERY MUCH in the embryonic stages. Many analogies apply here; Let a thousand flowers bloom, A rising tide floats all boats, etc. Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees when you are on the ground. Let us mature together as an industry. I suggest that we support Fred's efforts. There are significant efforts involved in this venture. FMFS may succeed or it may fail. But we can and will all learn along the way. Bruce Perens recently wrote basically a history of open source since he and Eric Raymond defined the term in February 1998 and started the Open Source Initiative (sorry no link at hand). He (and I) marveled at far we have come in Decade 0. I believe that OSI was significant in this growth. It took time, energy and money (and marketing) to make things happen. Maybe FMFS can be that organization for healthcare? Regards, Tim -- 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] === In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place. - Carlos Santana Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my creator, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.) - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
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
