[Foundation-l] Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

I have to agree with much of what Erik is saying here as well. The key  
statement for me is "there are of course areas where open source software  cannot 
(yet) compete." In response the software package being examined is the  most 
open of those available which meets the Foundation's specific needs. 
 
For those who are not in the know, these needs are threefold: 1) donor  
management, 2) press management, and 3) volunteer management (i.e., building a  
database of volunteers with specific skills and circumstances, who can respond  
to specific tasks, such as a request to interview someone who specializes in  
classical music, or someone who has a flatbed scanner at home). Other needs 
will  likely be identified over time as well. We need a package that can handle 
all of  the above--the package being examined can do that--and it is generally 
open  source. In fact, the propritary part is the privacy component, which 
means  that confidential information about donors and volunteers will not be 
accessible  to anyone with an internet connection. 
 
I do not think it lies within the scope of our mission to provide financial  
support for the development of free software alternatives, but I  generally 
accept Erik's other points, particularly that a partially  proprietary solution 
is preferable to a fully proprietary one. I would add,  however, that we 
should not compromise on the quality of our solutions. 
 
Danny
 
In a message dated 6/25/2006 12:58:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
eloquence at gmail.com writes:

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?