On 15 December 2011 15:35, Richard Symonds <richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

All,

Jon and the Board would like your input on our proposed open source policy. This would cover the general IT policy of the office – broadly defining what hardware/software we would be using as a chapter, and other IT-related issues. The policy is at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_source_policy: we’re really keen to have comments on this from WMUK members and supporters.

I would have questions for anyone who is a strong advocate of open source software in this context:

* What about documentation? Can you put your hand on your heart and say that if your job depended on it, you would be happy with the documentation that comes with typical open source software?

* Given that the software may be harder to use than the commercial equivalents, how would you justify the extra time cost to donors? Office costs are an overhead.

* Do you know the history here of WMUK's experience?

There are obviously other points. But as far as I'm concerned, and I speak as someone who has been in Richard's position, using open source to get administration done is a red herring, not an important "red line". (And of course I realise there are other views.)

Charles