Penguin Day - Will Non-Profit Organizations Give the Keys to the Kingdom to Open Source Software?
Last Sunday I attended the first-ever "Penguin Day" in Philadelphia. This one-day conference, piggy-backing on the larger NTEN Non-Profit Technology Conference, discussed issues (mostly) surrounding non-profit organizations' use of open source software and the future of FOSS in the NPO world. Overall, a positive spirit and hopefulness marked the conference and some tangible, concrete good may yet issue forth from these high-level conversations between NPO's, "e-riders," and open source technology developers and evangelists. There were moments of great animosity between technical people and non-profit representatives that surprised and saddened me to some degree. Some of this anger has evolved out of frustration from users who feel that jargon shrouds software in mystery, making it inaccessible to them. Furthermore users no doubt feel disappointment because technology extends sweeping promises and, some may say, fails to deliver. Open source, for some reason, appears to emblematically represent all of these aspects of application development. The bridge between these two communities is evangelism, but the question remains as to who is best suited to perform, and best positioned to receive, the evangelizing.
One suggestion at the conference was that e-riders will serve as the bridge. I am loathe to admit this but I had not heard of the term "e-rider" or "circuit rider" before Penguin Day. Apparently, "circuit rider" comes from a term used for judges in the Old West - where judges would "ride circuit" to hear cases in multiple counties. Initially, conference attendees described e-riders as those who assist NPO's in implementing technology. I thought happily to myself, 'Well I guess I'm an e-rider.' So I raised my hand when the conference leader polled for e-rider attendance. Then some minute or two later, we asked if there was a difference between e-riders and consultants. One e-rider, angrily it seemed, replied that e-riders have "principles" and that they come from the communities they serve. I think these kinds of sentiments are precisely the ones hindering relations between technology and non-profits, and more specifically between open source and non-profits. Many of us involved in open source software development or technology for non-profits find ourselves on the receiving end of this deprecatory separatism. This is a small, crowded planet that needs every iota of charity we can muster, so perhaps the time has come for a unity of purpose and voice, regardless of which side your feet fall on the tracks between commerce and public interest.
The misconceptions and myths surrounding open source application development are the remnants of open source's nascent period. In many of my comments, I tried to dispel the stereotype that open source projects are usually low level pieces of software, like compilers, on which a few super geeks work in their spare time. Many people had not heard of new open source business applications like phpCollab that have enterprise-level applicability and a higher degree of development team organization, along with a fairly nice, user-friendly interface and even documentation. The concept of a management layer to buffer and facilitate interactions between users and developers was eye-opening. Also surprising to some was the revelation that many open source developers work on these applications because they are being paid, either by a client or a sponsoring company, and not because they just personally want the functionality or are on an ego trip. Other open source people mentioned "idealism" as the number one motivator for open source developers - the idea that open, libre technology can serve to further democracy and a free society is one that resonated with many at the conference.
Other beliefs about open source expressed during the conference have some basis in fact. Despite the existence of numerous indexes, the types and uses of open source software are not totally transparent to those outside the circle. While documentation exists for quite a few large-scale projects, often the documentation is not user-friendly, current, or even complete. Work on open source software does not always proceed according to plan or at a breakneck pace because managers, if they exist on the project, cannot corral volunteers into producing on deadlines. Team continuity, which ultimately translates into product continuity, sometimes devolves when volunteers lose interest or the software's author/manager quits without warning. Proprietary software faces these same challenges to a lesser extent because they have licensing and upgrade fees fueling their work. On the other hand, popular open source projects often have wildly enthusiastic communities who are prepared to fight to the death before relinquishing their products to oblivion. A good example of this phenomenon is phpCollab - when Stephane Dion, the software's author, announced his departure there was an enormous response from the sprawling forum to take over development. Compare phpCollab's resurgence with the complete demise of Macromedia Sitespring, on which phpCollab was originally modelled. Macromedia decided the product no longer had value for them as a company, and Sitespring has since mostly disappeared from the marketplace.
What I have taken away from the conference is that the reason that NPO's have not widely adopted open source software is not because they do not understand technology but because we have not sufficiently evangelized open source to them and made the wide panoply of applications available in a transparent manner. In one of the workshops, we discussed how we might map non-profit needs to existing open source resources and create a network connecting technology facilitators, developers, and non-profit staffers. Many had touted Jonathon Peizer's "Socialforge" - a version of Sourceforge for the non-profit and philanthropic arena. Back in September, on this very blog, I responded to the article with praise for the general notion of crafting the connection between open source and non-profits but advocated a less dramatic, top-down solution. While I still believe that we should leverage existing resources like sourceforge and freshmeat, the conference has convinced me that a separate site that catalogues, evaluates, and advocates open source specifically for non-profits is probably necessary to advance the interests of both parties in one another. In order to access the vast pool of developers and other open source resources, this index site should have a physical conduit both to and from the most popular open source sites. This will require communication with those sites' leaders and forging new partnerships with the open source world. Evaluations and peer reviews are an important function for open source software since there is such a high learning curve and barrier to entry on many applications. Again, evangelizing - especially offline - will be a most important function to introduce newcomers to the very existence of open source software and promote non-profit and open source use of the new index site.
The alliance between NPO's and open source is both natural and, I think, paramount for both sides of the equation. Whether this alliance manifests in the form of meta-information sites, offline evangelism and advocacy (like the conference itself), or open source versions of vertical applications like Raiser's Edge, or even better, some kind combination of all these elements, the conference gave us all hope that a new age is dawning for NPO use of software. The era of the grass roots revolution, where individuals and community regain our place at the head of the table through democratic technology and the free flow of information, is at hand.
One suggestion at the conference was that e-riders will serve as the bridge. I am loathe to admit this but I had not heard of the term "e-rider" or "circuit rider" before Penguin Day. Apparently, "circuit rider" comes from a term used for judges in the Old West - where judges would "ride circuit" to hear cases in multiple counties. Initially, conference attendees described e-riders as those who assist NPO's in implementing technology. I thought happily to myself, 'Well I guess I'm an e-rider.' So I raised my hand when the conference leader polled for e-rider attendance. Then some minute or two later, we asked if there was a difference between e-riders and consultants. One e-rider, angrily it seemed, replied that e-riders have "principles" and that they come from the communities they serve. I think these kinds of sentiments are precisely the ones hindering relations between technology and non-profits, and more specifically between open source and non-profits. Many of us involved in open source software development or technology for non-profits find ourselves on the receiving end of this deprecatory separatism. This is a small, crowded planet that needs every iota of charity we can muster, so perhaps the time has come for a unity of purpose and voice, regardless of which side your feet fall on the tracks between commerce and public interest.
The misconceptions and myths surrounding open source application development are the remnants of open source's nascent period. In many of my comments, I tried to dispel the stereotype that open source projects are usually low level pieces of software, like compilers, on which a few super geeks work in their spare time. Many people had not heard of new open source business applications like phpCollab that have enterprise-level applicability and a higher degree of development team organization, along with a fairly nice, user-friendly interface and even documentation. The concept of a management layer to buffer and facilitate interactions between users and developers was eye-opening. Also surprising to some was the revelation that many open source developers work on these applications because they are being paid, either by a client or a sponsoring company, and not because they just personally want the functionality or are on an ego trip. Other open source people mentioned "idealism" as the number one motivator for open source developers - the idea that open, libre technology can serve to further democracy and a free society is one that resonated with many at the conference.
Other beliefs about open source expressed during the conference have some basis in fact. Despite the existence of numerous indexes, the types and uses of open source software are not totally transparent to those outside the circle. While documentation exists for quite a few large-scale projects, often the documentation is not user-friendly, current, or even complete. Work on open source software does not always proceed according to plan or at a breakneck pace because managers, if they exist on the project, cannot corral volunteers into producing on deadlines. Team continuity, which ultimately translates into product continuity, sometimes devolves when volunteers lose interest or the software's author/manager quits without warning. Proprietary software faces these same challenges to a lesser extent because they have licensing and upgrade fees fueling their work. On the other hand, popular open source projects often have wildly enthusiastic communities who are prepared to fight to the death before relinquishing their products to oblivion. A good example of this phenomenon is phpCollab - when Stephane Dion, the software's author, announced his departure there was an enormous response from the sprawling forum to take over development. Compare phpCollab's resurgence with the complete demise of Macromedia Sitespring, on which phpCollab was originally modelled. Macromedia decided the product no longer had value for them as a company, and Sitespring has since mostly disappeared from the marketplace.
What I have taken away from the conference is that the reason that NPO's have not widely adopted open source software is not because they do not understand technology but because we have not sufficiently evangelized open source to them and made the wide panoply of applications available in a transparent manner. In one of the workshops, we discussed how we might map non-profit needs to existing open source resources and create a network connecting technology facilitators, developers, and non-profit staffers. Many had touted Jonathon Peizer's "Socialforge" - a version of Sourceforge for the non-profit and philanthropic arena. Back in September, on this very blog, I responded to the article with praise for the general notion of crafting the connection between open source and non-profits but advocated a less dramatic, top-down solution. While I still believe that we should leverage existing resources like sourceforge and freshmeat, the conference has convinced me that a separate site that catalogues, evaluates, and advocates open source specifically for non-profits is probably necessary to advance the interests of both parties in one another. In order to access the vast pool of developers and other open source resources, this index site should have a physical conduit both to and from the most popular open source sites. This will require communication with those sites' leaders and forging new partnerships with the open source world. Evaluations and peer reviews are an important function for open source software since there is such a high learning curve and barrier to entry on many applications. Again, evangelizing - especially offline - will be a most important function to introduce newcomers to the very existence of open source software and promote non-profit and open source use of the new index site.
The alliance between NPO's and open source is both natural and, I think, paramount for both sides of the equation. Whether this alliance manifests in the form of meta-information sites, offline evangelism and advocacy (like the conference itself), or open source versions of vertical applications like Raiser's Edge, or even better, some kind combination of all these elements, the conference gave us all hope that a new age is dawning for NPO use of software. The era of the grass roots revolution, where individuals and community regain our place at the head of the table through democratic technology and the free flow of information, is at hand.
