Open Source Dialogue

1
Open Source Dialogue
Code Coordination Community

• Brad Wheeler
• Associate Vice President Dean
• Office of the VP for IT CIO
• Assoc. Professor of Business
• Indiana University
• bwheeler_at_iu.edu

2
Perspective
Software sourcing decisions are not new.
Build
Build or Buy
Build, Buy, or Borrow
1970-80s
1990
2000
2010
Benefits
Risks
3
Two Challenges

• Delivering sustainable economics to satisfied
  users
• Advancing the frontiers of innovation for user
  expectations

4
In Search of a Better Model
for how we pay and what we get. Software is not
free.
Stakeholder Coordination Open IP
Community Source Projects
Bundled IP Support
Partnering Organizations
Objectivesustainable economics and innovation
for satisfied users
5
Controlling Our DestinyBorrow

• Functionality of Systems
• integration, standardsinnovation
• Cost of Systems
• operations, maintenance, timing, evolution

PKI Dartmouth
6
Higher Ed Collaboration

• Can higher ed capture economies of scale in
  software creation and maintenance? The 100
  Million question

• Capturing Industry Leverage
• Learning how to partner
• Synchronizing institutional
• investments
• IT architecture discipline
• Creating effective consortia
• Common licensing!!

Lifecycle System Costs/ Effectiveness
?
Number Participating
7
Questions for Higher Ed

• Can I trust open source applications today?

• Can I trust open source applications tomorrow?

• Who will support it?

• Should I invest or be a free rider?

• When?

• Who will I hold accountable (sue)?

• Are there really any total cost of ownership
  advantages?

• Isnt vended software safer?

• Does this fit my institution?

Code Coordination Community
8
From The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv
On Behalf of .. Sent Thursday, November 18,
2004 457 PM
Dear Mr. Ellison, we are not interested in
migrating to Collaboration Suite and find
ourselves locked out of an upgrade path for our
Calendar services. If Oracle is unwilling to
sell and support Calendar as a standalone service
we will be forced to migrate to one of the
competing calendaring systems. This would be
unfortunate both because Oracle Calendar is a
quality product that has served us well, and
because of what it says about Oracle's
willingness to listen to and accommodate the
needs of its higher education customers. We are
formally requesting that Oracle commit to
maintaining the standalone version of Oracle
Calendar in rough parity with the collaboration
suite calendar component. We would appreciate a
response to this request by January 10, 2005,
even if it is not technically feasible to deliver
the updated stand-alone version in that
timeframe. Sincerely, ltlist of names,
institutionsgt
9
Higher Ed Applications
10
Community Source Projects
Community source describes a model for the
purposeful coordinating of work in a community.
It is based on many of the principles of open
source development efforts, but community source
efforts rely more explicitly on defined roles,
responsibilities, and funded commitments by
community members than some open source
development models. . from
www.sakaiproject.org
Institutional Investments for Institutional
Outcomes
11
The Sakai Project

• University of Michigan
• Indiana University
• MIT
• Stanford University

• JA-SIG (uPortal Consortium)
• Open Knowledge Initiative
• The Sakai Educational Partners

12
Sakai Project Timeline
Activity Maintenance Transition from
aproject to a community

• Michigan
• CHEF Framework
• CourseTools
• WorkTools
• Indiana
• Navigo Assessment
• Eden Workflow
• OneStart
• Oncourse
• MIT
• Stellar
• Stanford
• CourseWork
• Assessment

• Sakai 1.0 Release
• Tool Portability Profile
• Framework
• Services-based Portal
• Refined OSIDs implementations
• Sakai Tools
• Complete CMS
• Assessment

Primary Sakai Activity Architecting for JSR-168
Portlets,Re-factoring best of features for
tools Conforming tools to Technology Portability
Profile
13
Concurrent Development Leverage Commits To CVS
14
Sakai Organizational Structure
Sakai Board
Norton
Technical Executive Committee Severance-Chairman
SEPP Projects
Lowden
Speelmon
Counterman
Tools Team (TTeam)
Release Devel
Frame Work Service
Req
Req
GB
SAM
1.5 Devel
2.0 Devel
Melete
15
In production use with gt16,000 users at uMich
In Limited Pilot Use at IUFull Pilot in January
16
56 Sakai Partners as 01 Dec 04

• Arizona State University
• Boston University School of Management
• Brown University
• Cambridge University
• Carleton College
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
  Teaching
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Coast Community College District (Coastline
  Community College)
• Columbia University
• Community College of Southern Nevada
• Cornell University
• Dartmouth College
• Florida Community College at Jacksonville
• Foothill-De Anza Community College District
• Franklin University
• Georgetown
• Harvard University
• Johns Hopkins University
• Lüebeck University of Applied Sciences

• Simon Fraser University
• State University of New York
• Stockholm University
• SURF / University of Amsterdam
• Texas State University, San Marcos
• Tufts University
• Universitat de Lleida (Spain)
• University of Arizona
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Davis
• University of California, Los Angeles
• University of California, Merced
• University of California, Santa Barbara
• University of Cape Town (SA)
• University of Colorado at Boulder
• University of Delaware
• University of Hawaii
• University of Hull
• University of Illinois at Urbana-Champain

17
Sakai Commercial Affiliates The Sakai Commercial
Affiliates (SCA) are commercial firms that offer
for-fee support and expertise for the Sakai
Project's community source software. The Sakai
software is available for free download and use
without fee under the Educational Community
License. Affiliates offer their experience with
open source software to provide hosting,
consulting, installation, integration, and
support services.
Seeking engagement with others through The IMS
Global Learning Consortium
18
The Open Source Portfolio Initiative

• Developing ePortfolio Software
• Facilitating Community

19
Four Domains of ePortfolio
20
The Friction-less ePortfoliofor Life-Long
Learning
Within and across courses and universities,
colleges, trade schools, etc.
21
We had a problem (Jan 2002)
Oncourse was succeeding but

• Continue to develop ASP
• Isolated Development Sys Admin Team
• No leverage w/other capabilities

ONLY major enterprise System in ASP. All
others were in J2EE/AIX/Linux
License a commercial CMS/LMS
Build
1998
2002
22
w/Like-minded Partners
2002
2003
2004
23
IU Community Source Projects
2004
24
Sakai, OSPI, Kuali Lessons

• Collaboration is a capability
• Organizational readiness, learning
• Choose your partners well
• Like-minded institutions, timelines
• Contributions/insights from community
• Sakai structure is promising
• Small core development team
• Large partners organization

25
References

• Community Source Readings
• www.kualiproject.org/comm.html
• Projects
• www.sakaiproject.org
• www.theospi.org
• www.kualiproject.org
• http//twinpeaks.dev.java.net

26
Recent Historical Examples

• Models for Industry Change

27
Course Management Systems
Commercial
28
University Enterprise Portals
Commercial
uPortal
Pre-emptive
29
ePortfolio Software?
?
Commercial
?
What future will we choose?
30
Open Standards
31
Commercial vendors vary in the degree of their
commitment to, and delivery of, flexible,
interoperable systems that are truly based on
open standards.
--- Chris Vento, Syllabus, April 2004
32
A second discontinuity for vendors is the
double-edged sword of creating true
interoperability while selling unique value.
Customers want open systems using open standards,
but the very act of truly achieving this
commoditizes the proprietary value of a systems
uniqueness.
EDUCAUSE Review, June/July 2004
33
Open Standards Process
Time
34
Scenario B
Goodwill or marketplace pressure invokes
re-write to the specification
But
35
Commercial vendors vary in the degree of their
commitment to, and delivery of, flexible,
interoperable systems that are truly based on
open standards.
--- Chris Vento, Syllabus, April 2004
36
An Example

• Course export from
• a well known CMS

37
IMS Content Package Manifest
lt?xml version"1.0" encoding"UTF-8"?gt ltmanifest
identifier"man00001"gt ltorganizations
default"toc00001"gt lttableofcontents
identifier"toc00001"gt ... ltitem
identifier"itm00005" title"Course
Documents"gt ... ltitem identifier"itm00017
" identifierref"res00017" title"survey --
test"/gt ... lt/itemgt ... lt/tableofconte
ntsgt lt/organizationsgt ltresourcesgt ... ltresou
rce baseurl"res00017" file"res00017.dat"
identifier"res00017" type"resource/x-bb-docu
ment"/gt ... lt/resourcesgt lt/manifestgt
This is an embedded test element
But what kind of resource is this?
38
Whats in RES00017?
lt?xml version"1.0" encoding"UTF-8"?gt ltCONTENTgt
ltCONTENTTYPE value"co2"/gt ltTITLEgtsurvey
-- testlt/TITLEgt ltMAINDATAgt ltTEXTgtlt/TEXTgt ltTE
XTCOLOR value"000000"/gt ltFLAGSgt ltISHTML
value"true"/gt ltISNEWLINELITERAL
value"true"/gt lt/FLAGSgt lt/MAINDATAgt
ltDATESgt ltCREATED value"2002-07-15 165252
EDT"/gt ltUPDATED value"2003-10-16 103033
EDT"/gt lt/DATESgt ltFLAGSgt ltISAVAILABLE
value"true"/gt ltFROMCARTRIDGE value"false"/gt ltIS
DESCRIBED value"false"/gt ltISTRACKED
value"false"/gt ltISFOLDER value"true"/gt ltLESSONT
YPE value"N"/gt ltISSEQUENTIAL value"false"/gt ltLA
UNCHINNEWWINDOW value"false"/gt
lt/FLAGSgt lt/CONTENTgt
Wed expect to see a test representation, or even
binary data. Instead, this is a largely empty
file with a few flags. Was information lost?
39
Proprietary Information

• This could be a place holder, but how do we know
  unless it is documented or included in
  standards-based representation scheme? Why is
  this not openly disclosed?
• Test information could be represented using IMS
  QTI, so why is it missing from this manifest?

40
How does Open-Open Source affect Open Standards?
41
Three Conclusions

• Real open standards are solidified only after
  implementations exist.
• Commercial rivals have little natural incentive
  to cooperate and fully share their
  implementations.
• Open-open source reference implementations force
  interoperability via real open standards.

42
Open Standards Reality
Fussing, Cussing, Discussing. More Cussing
Coding and implementing specification in software
Recognition of a common problem
Convening of wise counsel
Specification published
Time
Interoperability, tranquility, peace on
Earth Open Standard
43
The interoperability of Open Source solutions
and Open Systems delivers the best of both
worlds.
--- Chris Vento, Syllabus, April 2004
44
The Kuali Project

• A Community Source
• Financial Information System

45
Evolving the FISCommunity Source

• Flexible Chart of Accounts
• General Ledger
• General Accounting
• Accounts Receivable
• Capital Asset Management
• Pre and Post-Award Administration
• Purchasing
• Accounts Payable
• Cash Receipting and Disbursement
• Travel Requisition and Reimbursement
• Auxiliary Accounting
• Web-based e-Commerce
• Budget Construction and Administration.

Noun kitchen wok- humble utensil which plays the
most important role in a successful kitchen
46
(No Transcript)
47
Like Two Icebergs
Faculty and students See only the tip of the
challenge -- and rightly so!
DL
CMS
Enormous complexity hidden below the surface

• Subscriptions
• Holdings
• Images/audio

• Syllabus
• Assignments
• Homework
• Discussions

Course Management Systems
Digital Library (broadly defined)
48
2 Searching
Library search window pops up, selectors for
source, fields for search terms
CMS Assignment Editor
Save
Cancel
Close Search

• Title Monopsony and Price
• Learning Objective(s)
• Understand why supplier power is detrimental to
  market efficiency
• Due Date 15 March 2004 1000a
• Reference Readings
• Assignment Write a lt 1 page
• Position paper agreeing or disagreeing
• with the author. What about Wal-Mart?

Library Search Wizard Catalog/Source
EBSCO Search Terms monopsony
Search
Concept User Screen in a CMS
49
3 Select Result
Click to select target DL reference
CMS Assignment Editor
Save
Cancel
Close Search

• Title Monopsony and Price
• Learning Objective(s)
• Understand why supplier power is detrimental to
  market efficiency
• Due Date 15 March 2004 1000a
• Reference Readings
• Assignment Write a lt 1 page
• Position paper agreeing or disagreeing
• with the author. What about Wal-Mart?

• Library Search Wizard
• Catalog/Source EBSCO
• Search Terms monopsony
• Results
• Monopsony and the American Way
• The case for FTC intervention in pricing..
• Why monopsonies/oligosonies are ineff..
• Ill-gotten gains Monopsonies and seller..
• ltmoregt

Search
Concept User Screen in a CMS
50
4 Drag-n-Drop
CMS Assignment Editor
Save
Cancel
Close Search

• Title Monopsony and Price
• Learning Objective(s)
• Understand why supplier power is detrimental to
  market efficiency
• Due Date 15 March 2004 1000a
• Reference Readings
• Assignment Write a lt 1 page
• Position paper agreeing or disagreeing
• with the author. What about Wal-Mart?

• Library Search Wizard
• Catalog/Source EBSCO
• Search Terms monopsony
• Results
• Monopsony and the American Way
• The case for FTC intervention in pricing..
• Why monopsonies/oligosonies are ineff..
• Ill-gotten gains Monopsonies and seller..
• ltmoregt

• Why monopsonies/oligosonies are
  inefficient, The Economist, (3) 2004.?

New Search
Concept User Screen in a CMS
51
5 Resume Authoring
CMS Assignment Editor
Save
Cancel
Library

• Title Monopsony and Price
• Learning Objective(s)
• Understand why supplier power is detrimental to
  market efficiency
• Due Date 15 March 2004 1000a
• Reference Readings
• Why monopsonies/oligosonies are
  inefficient, The Economist, (3) 2004.?
• Assignment Write a lt 1 page
• Position paper agreeing or disagreeing
• with the author. What about Wal-Mart?

Concept User Screen in a CMS
52
Models
53
Pure Commercial Software
Communication between Stakeholders and
Shareholders is in the form of large checks.

• Shareholders
• Desire to maximize profit
• Make most decisions so as to maximize profit
• Have final say in terms of developer priority -
  usually priorities have to do with profit

• Stakeholders
• Expect that because so much money is being paid
  that there is some form of indemnification in
  return (no one was ever fired for buying Cisco)
• Are willing to pay handsomely so as to be able to
  get good nights sleep
• Tell end users that they are using the best
  product that money can buy
• Can resist end-user demands for change because
  company is unwilling to change

• Commercial Developers
• Understand critical link between revenue and
  paycheck
• Focus is on stability of software rather than on
  features - as such features change slowly
• Do not even know stakeholders

There is almost no direct communication between
stakeholders and developers because then the
developers might actually start changing (and
breaking) the software.
Most Powerful in Structure
54
Pure Open Source Software

• Open Source Developers
• Type 1 Passionate individual who finds work on
  this software interesting
• Type 2 Paid consultant whose job it is to get a
  open-source software to pass test suites so as to
  show that there is an open-source reference
  implementation
• Teams formed based on personal time and
  motivation or a commercial venture with a
  short-term agenda
• Effort level ebbs and flows depending on
  commercial needs of the moment
• Performance and reliability are second-order
  issues
• Cool features and programming chops rule the day
  (and night)

• Stakeholders
• Love the notion that they have free software
  and source code.
• Hate the fact that there is no one to call - if
  it breaks you get to keep both pieces
• Look at open source solutions at a moment in time
  and make a yes/no decision based on state of the
  software at the moment of analysis
• Must self-indemnify by keeping lots of staff with
  questionable grooming habits in case something
  goes wrong.
• Once open source is chosen, may find it hard to
  sleep at night.
• Probably wont get to keep the savings form the
  open source decision beyond this fiscal year.

There is virtually no communication at all
between Stakeholders and Developers because they
operate in completely orthogonal areas of the
space-time continuum and if they ever ran across
one another - they would not even recognize that
they were in the same species.
55
Commercial In The Middle (Small)

• Stakeholders
• Have someone to call
• Tell their management and users that we have
  indemnification
• Since this is commercial and it is paid for, it
  must be good (aka Ostrich)
• Secretly know that the indemnification only goes
  so far
• Works best when stakeholder does not think too
  much about their situation.
• Pretty safe for smaller organizations because no
  one is ever really fired for bad decisions

• Commercial Support Houses
• Money for nothing is a nice Business Model
• Keep a small stock of talented folks fed
• Most of the time you are totally bored playing
  multi-player games
• Some of the time, you jump on a plane and put out
  a fire at a customer site
• Once in a great while you get sued, go out of
  business, wait a few weeks and start a new
  business

• Open Source Developers
• Nothing really changes
• If a developer from commercial support house has
  chops, we let them fix a few bugs and pat them on
  the back.
• Performance and reliability take a back seat to
  fun stuff

56
Commercial In The Middle (Large)

• Commercial Support Houses
• We write this software
• It is fast and reliable
• We are professional developers who will be around
  for a while
• We have decided that publishing source is good
  marketing
• We have decided that giving software away to
  cheapskates is better than having them steal the
  software or use something else.
• Start them off free, move them toward the pay
  stuff
• If they dont pay enough voluntarily, use F.U.D.
  to increase revenue.

• Stakeholders
• Really have someone to call
• Indemnification is real and has a very clear
  price
• A decision can be made based on the value of a
  good nights sleep.
• If the company engages in constant F.U.D.
  operations you bite the bullet, pay the ransom,
  grit your teeth and hope for something better to
  appear someday.
• If the company uses F.U.D. sparingly and keeps
  prices reasonable - this can be very stable.

• Open Source Developers
• Not really the main event
• Thanks for the bug fixes guys

This configuration usually lasts less than 10
years in the honeymoon state. At about 10 years,
the number of Vice Presidents exceed the number
of actual workers. To keep up the Lamborgini
payments prices must rise, but then stakeholders
switch to the free versions, so the company upps
its F.U.D. campaign intensity. This either tends
toward pure commercial or has a blow-out.
57
Community Source

• Commercial Support
• At least the core developers have to be
  responsible for reliability and performance
• The core developers have a boss who can be
  complained to
• Can pay some money to the Core for some
  indemnification
• Can make money from secondary stakeholders

• Secondary Stakeholders
• At least the core developers have to be
  responsible for reliability and performance
• The core developers have a boss who can be
  complained to
• Can pay some money to Core to get
  indemnification
• Can contribute to the Core in kind
• Can join the core with enough commitment
• Can pay Commercial Support for extra
  indemnification.

• Core Stakeholders
• It turns out that they actually have a lot of
  money and programmers
• If they pool resources, we would be instantly
  larger than many small commercial RD operations.
• Tired of writing big checks, and begging for
  features
• Form coalition of the committed
• Get quite excited when developers start doing
  what they are told.
• Must learn that this is harder than it looks -
  must gain company-like skills.
• Actually responsible for both the development and
  production of the software.

• Core Developers
• Work for the stakeholders so they want to make
  the Stakeholders happy

• Open Source Developers
• Can participate in the process based on
  contributions and chops

Issues How can this be kept stable after
founders reduce commitment? If successful, what
stops this from going commercial? What is the
right license for the IP produced as part of the
Core? What types of software is appropriate for
this? Payroll software?