On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 22:19 +0000, Seref Arikan wrote: > I personally see this big bootstrapping requirement as a unique > problem of this domain,
Compared to creating your own world class web server in the mid 1990's? RE: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html ========================================= Unlike other software development efforts done under an open source license, the Apache Web Server was not initiated by a single developer (for example, like the Linux Kernel, or the Perl/Python languages), but started as a diverse group of people that shared common interests and got to know each other by exchanging information, fixes and suggestions. As the group started to develop their own version of the software, moving away from the NCSA version, more people were attracted and started to help out, first by sending little patches, or suggestions, or replying to email on the mail list, later by more important contributions. When the group felt that the person had "earned" the merit to be part of the development community, they granted direct access to the code repository, thus increasing the group and increasing the ability of the group to develop the program, and to maintain and develop it more effectively. We call this basic principle "meritocracy": literally, government by merit. ========================================= At that point in history there wasn't an Apache Foundation. It was people working together. Openly, based on their interest and merit they were given access to participate. Right now the BUS FACTOR for the openEHR Specifications is ONE! Same as it has been since the beginning. I won't repeat Erik's points about archetype licensing. But as you can see; the only thing 'open' in openEHR are the specifications as published and handed to you. [Okay, there are a couple of tools but no one has created a community around any of them.] If you want to translate the specifications to another language check to see what hoops you have to jump through and software you have to purchase. Want to setup your own local CKM? It is open source right? Well, all except for the fact you have to purchase the proprietary engine it runs on. > and that's why I've been suggesting the things I've been writing. > I know that there are many paths an open source initiative and > business model can take, but I'd like to have that discussion with > clear suggestions/list for work items, and people who will be > responsible with it. I agree. Of course you get to decide what you consider responsible also. :-) I have a story for you that I like to call; "The Tale of Two Companies". Two "open"? companies; and their differences. I personally know the CEOs of both. The first is Rob Page of Zope Corp. He doesn't like or even today really understand open source. However, he did listen to his advisors and investors and open sourced what he considered to be their most prized possession. He did not try to control where the technical aspects of the specifications for the product went as far as overall design. He let the community and his internal engineers collaborate openly and even went on to later release Zope Enterprise Objects (ZEO) as open source. Today, the Zope Tool Kit is a huge robust library of tools used and supported by a large international community. Something that one small company could have never accomplished. Sam Heard of Ocean Informatics. Again a software company CEO that doesn't like or understand open source. He was convinced to open the specifications. But he controlled his internal staff so that they only produced tools that run on Windows platforms. With the exception being the ADL Workbench and that was by accident, not by design. If you look at the openEHR Foundation Board of Directors and the Architecture Review Board (ARB) you can see that it is heavily controlled by Ocean Informatics and their close associates. None of whom are or ever have been involved in open source/open content in anyway outside of the foundation. Changes to the specifications always come out of experience from the commercial software that they produce. The ARB is a closed decision making, invited members only group. The implementations of the specifications are of two kinds (with one exception); closed source commercial companies and short term academic projects left to die after the thesis is completed. Both of these companies have been in existence for approximately the same length of time. So what is the difference? It is "community". That is where MLHIM comes in. As I said, I did not embark on this lightly. I spent a lot of uncompensated time, money and energy trying to change the openEHR Foundation from the inside out over the past ten years. I didn't invent open source. I simply recognize what works. It is impossible with the current structure and the control issues the foundation exercises. These are my thoughts and opinions. I hope someone finds them more valuable than what they paid for them. Otherwise it really doesn't matter. :-) Cheers, Tim -- *************************************************************** Timothy Cook, MSc Project Lead - Multi-Level Healthcare Information Modeling http://www.mlhim.org LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101117/c0e53e3d/attachment.asc>
