1 / 17

The Cathedral, The Bazaar, and the Academy

The Cathedral, The Bazaar, and the Academy. Mitchell Kapor EDUCAUSE October 2004. Goals for this Talk. Describe instances of actual and proposed collaborative funding models for software for higher education

julie
Download Presentation

The Cathedral, The Bazaar, and the Academy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Cathedral, The Bazaar, and the Academy Mitchell Kapor EDUCAUSE October 2004

  2. Goals for this Talk • Describe instances of actual and proposed collaborative funding models for software for higher education • Look specifically at Chandler and Sakai, two instances of open source projects being developed with collaborative funding • Understand more about opportunities and challenges of open source in the higher education environment

  3. Original Chandler Vision • Open Source Personal Information Manager • Email, CALENDAR, contacts, tasks, free-form items • Fresh design • Easy sharing and collaboration • Linux, Mac, and Windows • Modular and extensible platform

  4. Brief History • Originated in the Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF) in San Francisco • First conceived as PC client with peer-to-peer networking • Interaction with Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Common Solutions Group • Westwood - version of Chandler specifically for higher education

  5. Drivers • Higher education requirements, especially with calendaring, not being well met by commercial vendors • High cost of existing solutions • Desires to move away from proprietary lock-in and toward open, standards-based software

  6. Requirements • Support campus use patterns • 10,000+ users • Centralized storage • Nomadic access • Security • Only gets more important • Integration • IMAP, LDAP… • Blackberry…

  7. Funding and Process • Andrew W. Mellon Foundation @ $1.5MM • 25 schools in Common Solutions Group @ $50,000 each • Total $2.75MM over three years • Westwood Advisory Council (WAC) • Regular consultations

  8. Status • 0.4 (now) experimentally useable • 0.5 (Q1 2005) “dog food” • Kibble (2005) • Westwood (2006-2007)

  9. Assessment • Accomplishment has been slower than plan, but stakeholders are (cautiously) optimistic • Pace of progress is increasing • Software is hard

  10. Lessons • Ambition has a price • Simultaneous effort at innovation in the front end and back end ups the ante dramatically • Cross-platform delivery of graphical user interface ia hard • Dependence on many other open source projects of differing maturity increases complexity • Innovation proceeds better through stages, not a “great leap forward” • Major change in network architecture from P2P to WebDAV

  11. Sakai • Course management system • Goals • Cost savings • Standardization • Model for future

  12. Participation • Core Schools: • Indiana • MIT • Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor • Stanford • Foundations • Andrew W. Mellon • William and Flora Hewlett • uPortal Consortium • Open Knowledge Initiative

  13. Sakai Educational Partners • $10,000 per annum • Minimum three year commitment • 50 schools so far • Early access to and participation in Sakai

  14. Educore • Proposal by Ira Fuchs at Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • Coordination of development, distribution, and maintenance of key academic and administrative software functions • 1,000 colleges and universities @ $5,000-$25,000 per annum

  15. Why “Educore”? • Conventionally, open source projects originate in a programmer’s desire to scratch own itch • May be sub-optimal in meeting needs • Is it possible to be (somewhat) directive yet remain open? • In general, efforts at “industrial policy” have been failures • But the DoD-funded ARPAnet was a completely stunning success

  16. Is Open Source Special? • Uniqueness of open source is as an alternative model of production • Openness and transparency permit lower barriers to entry and coordination costs • Leverage!!! • BUT open source is not pixie dust to be sprinkled on a project • “Anyone can…” • Hidden Costs

  17. What Open Source Needs to Succeed • Technical infrastructure • Community infrastructure • Formal governance • Licensing • Clear values and principles • Practices which integrate principles by using tools • Where the Rubber Hits the Road • New participants and projects • Decision-making

More Related