Paper 2

This paper has been edited by Former user (Deleted)

Sakai is a Community Source Project

Apache is not Linux. Apache made a number of decisions regarding vision, processes, and organization that differ from Linux. The lesson for me is that higher ed should draw from all good models that make sense to us to evolve this model we call "Community Source" to meet OUR needs. We need not feel the formula is "just do it like Apache" or any other project that draws from and serves a constituency that is different from our primary target.

I recently presented at CNI the following slides on "The Community Source Model" http://wheeler.kelley.indiana.edu/pdfs/cni_community_source_inked_20050404.ppt and Chuck Powell was there too. For some, this was explaining Community Source for the first time, and for others, we compared it to other approaches. I draw your attention to blatantly stolen slides (#14-17) from Chuck Severance. While we might quibble about some of the small print ideas (some to provoke debate), the thesis is that in PURE open source projects, the Techies largely have the power. This is fine when they are also the prime users of the products (Linux, Apache, etc.).

The Community Source slide tries to demonstrate that the power in the CS model is an ecosystem where the stronger voice is the stakeholders (faculty, students, academic technologists, "the suits," and other users) for Community Source software. We have a lot of processes to sort out to make this real, but to be honest, I view an occasional squeal from a pure open source-minded techie that essentially says this is not pure open source as affirmation that the CS model is functioning as intended.

So now....follow the money. Making SEPP a fee-based membership organization was one of our best decisions thus far. I may be hearing from a biased sample, but the confidence that it gives the community for sustainability has been echoed to me over and over.

As a business school professor, I strongly advocate that Sakai NOT affirm itself as a product. Some may choose to think of us that way, and it is their prerogative to do so. Our internal culture should not affirm this, as we are the Sakai PROJECT. We benefit from a meritocracy culture where valued contributions speak to claims on resources.

A simple example first. We ALL benefit tremendously from a de-bugged and release engineered version of Sakai, an architecture roadmap, active discussion groups, conferences and many other things. I don't assess my considerable fees to EDUCAUSE, CNI, CSG, or other groups based on a metered model of fee in and identifiable service out, yet I know that these groups do accomplish a lot for the good of higher ed. Perhaps this is the key message for the $10K. By comparison, I see SEPP as a pretty solid value proposition – in my opinion. Other forms of contribution include code patches and tools. I believe there already exists ways for anyone to contribute back code fixes or post tools –
even those not in SEPP.

There are lessons from the grant period that should not be tossed entirely, and academia is replete with cool projects that never found their sustainability legs. We do not want Sakai to be one of those, and I believe that an identifiable revenue stream that can be defended in tough local budget decisions is essential.

In conclusion, Sakai is not a closed consortium where membership is the ONLY way to the work products. Sakai is not a pure open source project, and short of strong guidance in that direction, we are not on a course to be pure open source. We are Community Source..."Community Investments for Community Outcomes in the Open Source Tradition." We are far closer to open source than a closed consortium. Our SEPP value proposition is membership in the community and processes that evolve Sakai – anyone gets Sakai's work products. Some parts of that community (DGs) will choose to have open membership, and some will be SEPP only. I anticipate the SEPP Board (2006 and beyond) will listen more carefully
to SEPP voices than the general public. The DGs provide a flow of community-to-community knowledge and exchange of ideas that are a far better value than many alternative forms of support or staff development activities. The shared fees of SEPP will support architecture and release engineering services that are essential for a prosperous project that merits enterprise-level commitment.

I don't see our value proposition as much fancier than that. I believe these activities, when combined with our collectivist nature as academics, is sufficient to sustain SEPP membership.