[acquisitions-wg] [report-card] Getting Started

[John M. Pugh]

On 11/25/2009 10:43 AM, Gunnar Hellekson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote:
>> Although I care a great deal about open government as well as open
>> source, I'm also confused because the questions posted beow on openness
>> are only tangentially related to open source software. I thought OSA
>> was focused on the adoption of open source software, and your list of
>> questions is taking you pretty far into other territory. Is there an
>> explanation online of the relationship between transparency/participation
>> and the adoption of open source software?
> 
> That's a great question, Andy. I realize that I didn't give as full a
> background as I should have. 
> 
> If we do a report card that's about open source software specifically, it will
> be more difficult to gain traction with the agencies. This is because most
> agencies don't understand why open source software is important. They do,
> however, understand that open government is important. They're looking for
> ways to demonstrate progress against the Open Government memo issued in
> January. So if we have a broad tent, we can ensure that open source software 
> is part of any discussion about open government.
> 
> Put another way, having a broader coalition with open government groups
> ensures that open source software is seen to be as relevant as, say, 
> transparency or open standards.
> 
> Also, to be self-serving, a broader scope to the report card means that more
> people are available to help.
> 
> So that's why the questions address Open Government, rather than just open
> source software.
> 
> Is this approach sensible? Are there other questions we should be asking the
> agencies? Are there other organizations who'd be willing to collaborate on
> this project?

I haven't had time to spend a significant amount of time "noodling" on 
the questions, but they seem to be more focused on open government 
directly vs being focused on the role of open government on open source 
software (or vice-versa) as Andy mentions and that seems to conflict 
with the "expected" mission of the group.

However, I have not seen the outcome that is trying to be created here. 
It seems that this group is wanting to find a way to show progress on 
open source software usage in government - if that is the outcome, then 
the questions miss the mark.

My questions back to the team:
What is the outcome you are trying to create?
Who is the target of the questions (technical, administrative, etc)?
Are the questions going to be "re-used" on a regular basis?

I would imagine that the best route to get started is to simply gather a 
baseline of what is used (and the level of detail appropriate to the 
target) and use that as a mechanism for comparing what alternatives are 
available (provided the outcome being created is aligned) then use 
generative language to show how well that is aligned to open government.

JP