I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible alternatives.
So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security package") CRM software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management). I've no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help with this.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible alternatives.
So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security package") CRM software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management). I've no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help with this.
Angela. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
There's several Web based CRM solutions that are open sourced - we use one at solera -- however, MS has some good windows stuff as well. I'll dig into the versions and post where we got it from. It's ok for folks to use whatever they like, and not all open source apps are up standards or are secure.
Jeff
On 6/25/06, Angela [email protected] wrote:
I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible alternatives.
So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security package") CRM software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management). I've no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help with this.
Will you also be removing MacOS from Jimmy's laptop, from Brion's G5? Will we be replacing IOS in our Cisco routers with Linux PCs running XORP? The folding at home client that consumes large amounts of the CPU time on our servers is proprietary as well (http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=wiki...). The hard disks which store our data in our servers have proprietary firmware too... Much of our donations come through Pay-pal... Yet no one outside of paypal has access to paypal's source! I could go on all day and make hundreds of examples. They'd all by stupid, but so is an objection about some internal piece of web based management software.
The fact is that none of these things where we currently use proprietary software are in the critical path for creating or serving Wikipedia content, they are infrastructure.
For the same reasons that most of the world should prefer Free infrastructure we should too, however, we should not forget that the purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is not "to be an example of Free Software at all costs". The use of a quasi-free CRM would not harm our neighbors, it would increase the prevalence of proprietary file formats, it would not cause our readers, donors, editors, or even employees to need to run any more proprietary software on their system (SugarCRM is web based, like Paypal).
SugarCRM is also, by far, the most open of all the available CRM packages... Were we not interested in using open software we would be using something like Blackbaud's The Raiser's Edge which is software targeted at funddrive management... It's very powerful stuff with the right tools to operate multi-million-dollar fundraisers. However, it also would require building a parallel Microsoft infrastructure.
So... 1) We already use proprietary web based software for critical infrastructure which impacts our donors (we force them to use the remote proprietary software as well). 2) We already installed and run proprietary software on our servers (folding at home for example)
3) But you're making a fuss over running a single piece of non-free web based internal software which will not touch our readers, donors, or editors... and only touch the staff and perhaps some volunteers in the same manner that Paypal does. When we already run proprietary software on our servers.
So why is it that you are making a big deal about CRM, delaying a critical part of our infrastructure which I suspect we desperately need, when instead we could be calling out for a better alternative to Paypal (which not only is non-free but has a public history of unethical behavior and which costs us a lot of money)? Or why not first ask Tim to remove the proprietary electrical power sucking code he is running on our cluster?
With comments like "Brad and his friends" and non-reality based claims "Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software" you end up looking as contemptuous towards Brad as I am towards Erik... Now *that* is shameful.
In any case, if the stupid politics continue on this I'm sure I can find someone to run SugarCRM on their own equipment and sell Wikimedia Foundation webbased access to it for a small premium. Doing so would make it less open and more costly but when does reality have anything to do with rhetoric?
On 6/25/06, Gregory Maxwell [email protected] wrote:
our neighbors, it would increase the prevalence of proprietary file formats
gah. Would *not*.
SugarCRM is also, by far, the most open of all the available CRM packages...
Available ''full service'' CRM packages. There a dozens of free software tools for CRM like tasks. A piece of paper is an open CRM tool. We could use Emacs no doubt! There is a presumption I made in that statement that we need something more powerful than a blank sheet of paper or a basic contact book. If that assumption is correct, my statement on Sugar is correct.
I won't comment on the specific question, but on the underlying Wikimedia policy issue.
The Board can decide the policy for software use by the Foundation. What would a sensible policy look like? I think an a priori "open source[*] only" policy is problematic since there are of course areas where open source software cannot (yet) compete. For instance, I'm not aware of a professional open source optical character recognition (OCR) solution, which is crucial for digitization.
However, we do need to be aware of the risks of proprietary software: vendor lock-in, company bankruptcy, no code availability for security auditing, and so on. Aside from that, supporting open source is an important matter of outside perception for the Foundation.
How about a policy that states: - when no adequate (as determined by its prospective users) 100% free software solution for a task can be found, a proprietary solution may be used. - such use needs to be reported and documented in a list of proprietary software used by the Foundation, so that the decision can be debated and challenged by the community. - in such cases, a partially proprietary solution is preferable to a fully proprietary one. - a migration plan should be made as soon as a realistic fully open source alternative emerges. - the Foundation should, within its budget, support the development of such an alternative.
Does that make sense?
Best, Erik
[*] Apologies to those who prefer "free software"; I use the terms interchangeably.
On 6/25/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
I won't comment on the specific question, but on the underlying Wikimedia policy issue.
[snip]
Does that make sense?
Best, Erik
I agree with Erik's position here, in general.
I'd like to add is that we should include consideration of two important axes.
1) The influence the software has on the outside world.
Compare the impact of an internal house keeping app with the impact of running Microsoft Office and sending out official foundation documents in Word format. Non-free software solutions should probably never be used for applications which land on the 'most impacting' side of the spectrum. For example, we should never make official use of a proprietary file format for official communication to our editors, creating a barrier to entry for users of free software, even if there is no good alternative available.
2) Critically to the critical path of our project's purpose.
Compare the use of a proprietary software address book in the office to storing the Wiki content in a proprietary format. This is the distinction between 'involved with the content' and everything else.
Various problems will have some position on these axis, for example, Erik's OCR example is very much involved with the content, but is almost totally invisible outside of the person using it. A CRM solution is not involved with the content but has impact on a few more people, although not widescale impact (Some on foundation staff and perhaps volunteers; none on general readers, donors, or editors). Paypal has significant impact on outsiders, but it's outside of the content critical path (and webbased).
This seems to me to be just the latest example of infighting within the WMF becoming a war of attrition on this list. By example I mean that no-one should consider the rest of this message as directed at Angela particularly. Everyone is being equally damaged by these e-mails and it is pointless. Truthfully it is the WMF that is coming out the loser. Is anyone willing to bring up whatever the actual underlying problems are? Is there something that can be done to work these things out and end this sort of foolishness?
I don't know how everyone can be talking of bringing in new outside board members into the sort of environment which must be producing these sorts of emails. If there is as much infighting going on as I imagine, bringing in an outsider with experience would likely be the same as handing over control of the organization to them. They would just need to play you guys off one another to do as they like.
Birgitte SB who is tired of the signal-to-noise ratio
--- Angela [email protected] wrote:
I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible alternatives.
So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security package") CRM software
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management).
I've no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help with this.
Angela. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Angela wrote:
I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible alternatives.
The fact of the matter is what is the foundation's procurement policy? IMHO WMF should look at open-source stuff first but if it is not suitable then look at proprietary stuff. Did you look at sourceforge? I am sure there is some CRM software there. Cheers, Nathan.
Nathan Carter wrote:
The fact of the matter is what is the foundation's procurement policy? IMHO WMF should look at open-source stuff first but if it is not suitable then look at proprietary stuff. Did you look at sourceforge? I am sure there is some CRM software there.
Such as: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sugarcrm ?
For this conversation to progress usefully, we need to know the answer to this question:
What does the proprietary version of SugarCRM Professional support that: a) the open-source version does not *and* b) we actually need ?
If there's something specific, we might have a hope of actually comparing alternatives. As it is, we've got an experimental internal installation of the *open-source* SugarCRM for those who would be using it to figure out whether they can make it do what they need.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Fascinating. I'm reminded of the phrase "speak now or forever hold your peace." Must be wedding season.
Other than the handwringing of "there must be something", I haven't received a single suggestion of a single bit of actual software from anyone, except one very kind person who humbly suggested another open source package which was (in her estimation) "most likely inappropriate" but "worth a look?!?".
To restate the issue (just in case anyone wasn't following along)...if you are aware of an open source / free CRM package that has functionality that is enterprise-worthy, email me. The proprietary package to beat, in the non-profit case at least, is The Raiser's Edge from Blackbaud. If you have the link to a package I should be looking at, email me.
I think it should not surprise anyone that there are *not* dozens of alternatives which have the capabilities we need. When it comes to the simple question "this is the proprietary solution - does anything in the open source space compare?" and you have pressing business needs that must be attended to, you do what you have to do. The fact that a product which is not perfect but is probably close enough even exists is fantastic. And, on philosophical grounds if you are willing to forego the proprietary solution which actually *does* work to do what you want out of the box, and consider the more-open-than-any-other-solution, I would think that would be seen as a sign of strength and commitment to pushing back, not a sellout of an (at presently) unattainable ideal.
We just began our testing of the system, which Brion got up and running late last week (in a matter of a few hours, btw, thx Brion). We haven't committed to it at this point, but it is the system to beat, pending our testing, gap analysis, and fuller discussion with Sugar about the Professional package offerings.
-B
On 6/26/06, Brad Patrick [email protected] wrote:
We just began our testing of the system, which Brion got up and running late last week (in a matter of a few hours, btw, thx Brion). We haven't committed to it at this point, but it is the system to beat, pending our testing, gap analysis, and fuller discussion with Sugar about the Professional package offerings.
Hi Brad,
thanks to you and Brion for testing it. I would welcome it if it proves to be usable for our needs. In the meantime, take 5 minutes to read about the Bitkeeper fiasco if you haven't heard about it already.
As Wikimedia Deutschland e.V faces the same task, I would be happy to see us share this information and experiences.
Good luck, Mathias
Hi Brad!
To restate the issue (just in case anyone wasn't following along)...if you are aware of an open source / free CRM package that has functionality that is enterprise-worthy, email me.
I haven't had the time to take a look at them, but in their latest open source study the German Fraunhofer Society mentioned - besides SugarCRM - the packages http://www.opencrx.org/ and http://www.wice.de/ as the only open source CRM software that can compete with its proprietary competitors.
The German computer magazine c't tested some open source CRM packages (but not wice) and drew the conclusion, that only SugarCRM and it's spin-off Vtiger are really usable at the moment. OpenCRX has an impressing feature set but would lack intuitive usability. http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/73338
Kurt
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:23:30AM +1000, Angela wrote:
I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible alternatives.
The critical element of open source for wikimedia is the avoidance of vendor lock-in.
Software used by wikimedia SHOULD be open source, but though it MAY in some instances be proprietary, it MUST avoid vendor lock-in. [1]
That way, even if we can't publish or share _some_ parts of our infrastructure right this very minute, we at least retain the ability and option to do so in future. [2]
read you soon, Kim Bruning
[1] The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
[2] Avoidance of vendor lock-in is important and advantageous for many business reasons as well. To keep things concise, I'm sticking to just wikimedias own key cultural objective.