Comments on: On project governance http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/11/17/on-project-governance/ Hacktivist, coding for social change Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:19:13 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Rodney H. Kay http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/11/17/on-project-governance/comment-page-1/#comment-5579 Rodney H. Kay Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:53:44 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/?p=406#comment-5579 A very astute observation on project governance. While I lament your criticism of the World Vista project, I can not deny either its validity or its veracity. It is interesting to note, however, that the "corporate" takeover which you mention is exactly what happened to MedSphere when Steve and Scott Shreeve were expelled by the Board. Still, it is that governing body which has brought growth to the community. Excellent post! A very astute observation on project governance. While I lament your criticism of the World Vista project, I can not deny either its validity or its veracity. It is interesting to note, however, that the “corporate” takeover which you mention is exactly what happened to MedSphere when Steve and Scott Shreeve were expelled by the Board.

Still, it is that governing body which has brought growth to the community. Excellent post!

]]> By: Matthew King http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/11/17/on-project-governance/comment-page-1/#comment-5578 Matthew King Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:23:37 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/?p=406#comment-5578 Fred, One of the great advantages of open source is a lack of governance that allows contributions to come from so many different sources: 1) Nonprofit groups such as WorldVistA 2) For profit business such Medsphere 3) Consumers such as Clinica Adelante and the West Virginia groups 4) Individuals such as Ignacio Valdes, Kevin Toppenburg and many, many others 5) Government agencies such as the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service However large the funnel for innovation is, however; the community just as importantly needs a "concentrating" end that can take the content and vet it, package it and distribute it. Although the funnel analogy is good, a small sieve is better, because there obviously can be more than one distribution source. The idea of Class I, Class II, and Class III software is part of an ideal process. Class III would be Beta, experimental, Class II from source say like WorldVistA that has an approved and defined process for release, and Class I from the VA and IHS. Governance would involve defining the process from acquistion to release of Class II and Class I, and the transition of Class III to I or II. I'm sure this answer is too simplistic, but the idea would be to have the governance more involved with the release end and practically not involved at all with the innovation end, but create a process to move acceptable ontributions through the system. matt Fred,

One of the great advantages of open source is a lack of governance that allows contributions to come from so many different sources:
1) Nonprofit groups such as WorldVistA
2) For profit business such Medsphere
3) Consumers such as Clinica Adelante and the West Virginia groups
4) Individuals such as Ignacio Valdes, Kevin Toppenburg and many, many others
5) Government agencies such as the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service

However large the funnel for innovation is, however; the community just as importantly needs a “concentrating” end that can take the content and vet it, package it and distribute it. Although the funnel analogy is good, a small sieve is better, because there obviously can be more than one distribution source.
The idea of Class I, Class II, and Class III software is part of an ideal process. Class III would be Beta, experimental, Class II from source say like WorldVistA that has an approved and defined process for release, and Class I from the VA and IHS. Governance would involve defining the process from acquistion to release of Class II and Class I, and the transition of Class III to I or II.
I’m sure this answer is too simplistic, but the idea would be to have the governance more involved with the release end and practically not involved at all with the innovation end, but create a process to move acceptable ontributions through the system.

matt

]]>