Dear all, I do not know what was discussed in last Saturday's meeting about this issue, but I would like to contribute my penny's worth for the position paper. Here goes ...
Before approaching politicians with what we want to tell them about Open Source, we need to put ourselves in their shoes and ask ourselves what they would want to know about this issue. All change carries risk, and politicians (like any businessmen worth their salt) will want to maximise the positive impact of any change (the louder the bang, the better) and minimise the risks. If we do not manage this, than our endeavour is a non-starter. If, however, we do manage to convince them, we will then need to point out clearly what action needs to be taken for these gains to materialise. Therefore, I believe we should focus on these three issues: 1 – The Bang: For the politician, in this case it will probably be mainly the financial savings. This will need to significantly offset all costs that will be incurred as a result of any changeover (costs of installation, retraining, recreation of certain functions like macros, etc). Can we come up with some indicative figures, eg. from some other countries or from the business sector? 2 – The Risks: Although we could talk about the stability, security, transparency etc of Open Software, perhaps the easiest way to convince them is to give them examples from other nations, departments (e.g. Department of Defence of a particular country), large multinational companies and large national companies who have adopted Open Source successfully. The argument would be that if there are any grave risks involved, these entities would not have even dreamed of adopting Open Source, and the fact that they have been successful means that we could be as well. We could also mention the large number of servers that run on Open Source Software (again, figures would help). Technical comparisons between Open Source and Propriety Software, or the philosophical virtues of Open Source is unlikely to ignite politicians' imagination. The rapid development cycles (e.g. twice a year for Ubuntu vs only once every so many years for Windows) could also be of some concern, although one could go for Long Term Support versions. Another risk they might be concerned about (if they are savvy enough) could be what might be considered to the the lack of financial incentive for long-term commitment for such software to be still around in 5, 10 or even 20 years' time as compared to the great financial incentive there is for large companies to survive. I do not have an answer to this problem but some of you out there may. These less obvious risks do not necessarily have to be brought up by us (we do not want to alarm the politicians unnecessarily), but we must be prepared with answers to such questions in case they come up. Also, to minimise risks in general, we could suggest starting with a pilot study by adopting a single software product in a single department that uses non-specialised (generic) software (e.g. Libreoffice in the Ministry of Justice) rather than for Open Source Operating Systems and Software for the Inland Revenue Department or, worse still, for all government hardware from the MITA servers down to the last secretary's pc. We must also acknowledge that in some areas, there is no substitute for Windows e.g. a medical laboratory machine that comes with software written for Windows only. 3 – The Action: Finally, we need to point out to politicians that the biggest stumbling block for this change to take place is the Tendering Process, which has to change to allow Open Software to 'compete' with propriety software. With all the conviction in the world, nothing will happen unless such practices change. Effie On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 06:03 +0200, Daniel wrote: > we can put it on the agenda for next Saturday's meeting...... > > > > Well, if there's a time when politicians are willing to listen, it's > > now. After the election they'll feel safe with 5 years ahead of > > them. If we can get statements of support we can use them later, > > reminding them of their support for OSS. Besides, there are several > > grassroots movements at the moment like the one against ACTA. I'm > > sure most politicians would want to be on the right side of any such > > movement. > > > > I think we should contact all parties to arrange a meeting. We'd > > need to have some concrete proposals first - maybe a position paper. > > This could mention things such as OSS in education, adopting open > > standards for government services (especially if we can identify any > > services which currently do not), etc. > > > > Ramon Casha > > > > > > On 14 May 2012 19:51, Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Ramon. I agree 100%. Just a question: why we Maltese > > are most of the time passive, being a Maltese gemgem in > > small groups, and never trying to change at least some small > > things ? We cannot change MPs overnight (no illusion), but > > if we never try then we lost the battle already. I prefer to > > die on the battlefield, trying at least, rather then being > > at home repeating the same negative attitude..........maybe > > that's why many countries did protest on the first of May > > (about working conditions) and Malta was the only nation > > which did not protest!!! > > > > It's up to us to make our voice meaningful and loud enough > > to be heard by the local media. We can start as well talking > > to our friends who work on TV, radio or newspapers....... > > > > One final note: when I was a child I expected my parents to > > do all the dirty work. As an adult I don't expect anybody to > > do my work. especially working hard for the principles I > > believe in. And I don't count the value of my principles by > > the amout of response I get. If nobody hears me, then after > > a self evaluation, I keep trying on and on. My favourite > > writer wrote: I was born a fighter and not a loser! > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > If we do and say nothing at all, we will be giving them > > > the message that we don't really care about these things. > > > If they've got people like Microsoft and others lobbying > > > to get their closed-source solutions into government and > > > nobody saying otherwise, they will go with what Microsoft > > > wants. > > > > > > > > > Ramon Casha > > > > > > > > > On 14 May 2012 09:12, iain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > They will just tell you what they think you want > > > to hear. Unless > > > something is done beforehand, why should you > > > believe *anything* they > > > tell you they'll do after the elections? > > > > > > On 12/05/12 19:13, Daniel wrote: > > > > How about organising a meeting with both parties > > > in view of the > > > > forthcoming elections regarding their policies > > > of open source? > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > MLUG-list mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > http://linux.org.mt/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > MLUG-list mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://linux.org.mt/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > MLUG-list mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://linux.org.mt/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > > > > > -- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MLUG-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://linux.org.mt/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MLUG-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://linux.org.mt/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > MLUG-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://linux.org.mt/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list _______________________________________________ MLUG-list mailing list [email protected] http://linux.org.mt/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list
