[Foundation-l] Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

[James Hare]

Mr. Wool,

I don't care if you use AOL, but such a database would be the best thing
ever. This way, we have people within the foundation that are easily
contactable in the event the Wikimedia Foundations needs... say... a
60-year-old privacy activist. For the record, I have a flatbed scanner that
also functions as a photocopier (color and b&w) and a printer.

On 6/25/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>