|Organization:||Library Technology Guides|
Perspective and commentary by Marshall Breeding
There comes a point where an open source software projects grows beyond what can be managed through informal channels. The Koha project has seen great success through widespread deployments and company involvement. Recent events suggest that it's time to take a closer look at the governance of the Koha project.
I suggest a shift from a community comprised of developers to that of a community focused on the libraries that use the software.
In the Koha open source project, the word "community" has been used as the group of companies and individuals involved in its development. This represents a very developer-focused perspective and leaves the libraries using the software extremely vulnerable to a variety of external factors. An alternative approach would involve a library-focused approach were the libraries that use the software drive the strategy of the software. Libraries may not enjoy the benefits of open source regarding vendor-independence, sustained development, and enhancement of the software in ways that best meet their current and future needs unless they, rather than the developers, assert ownership of the project.
The libraries that use the software are stakeholders of the highest level. Yet, they have not been well represented at the table for many of the strategic conversations that involve the future of Koha. Companies and developers so far have had the dominant voices.
Vendors will come and go. The success of an open source project should not be vulnerable to the business viability and the commercial interests of those that provide services. Rather, libraries should manage the governance of the software, while establishing conditions that encourage participation by vendors that provide services to the community of libraries that rely on the software. Libraries involved in the use of open source software should take action to ensure that they are not vulnerable to the success or failure of any given business or reliant on specific business strategies. The companies currently involved in the support of open source software in the library automation arena are generally small, undercapitalized, with very limited resources. The individuals within these companies have proved to be dedicated to the concept of open source software, brilliant programmers, and strong proponents of libraries. While each company has strong promise of success in the short term, long-term prospects are always uncertain.
In order to enjoy the benefits of independent software governance, libraries must also assume its associated costs. Given the limited resources of the companies involved, the library community should not expect them to take on a layer of expense that may or may not fall within their business strategies. In order to ensure objective governance of the software, libraries must tax themselves in a way that supports the establishment and operation of a foundation.
A foundation that might provide a model would be the Kuali Foundation (www.kuali.org). This foundation governs core infrastructure software used in higher education, including the Kuali Rice enterprise class middleware, Kuali Financial, a large-scale accounting system, and Kuali Student for the management of student accounts. The OLE project is looking toward Kuali Foundation as its governance body. Note that the board of directors of Kuali consists entirely of the CIO-level administrators of universities that use one or more of the Kuali modules. Since it's open source software, organizations can download and use the Kuali software for free, but that Kuali membership ranges from $4,500 to $24,000 annually. Kuali membership gives organizations a strong role is the strategic governance of the software. Corporation can be Kuali members at $20,000 annually. The Kuali software competes with commercial software that can represent over an $1 million investment, so the scale of economy is an order of magnitude higher than the ILS sphere.
Some of the characteristics of a foundation involved with Koha might include:
Companies involved in the support and development of Koha would continue to play an important role. They would be expected to compete and cooperate, providing essential services to the libraries that use the software.
Service and support companies would not be expected to bear the expense of shared infrastructure and processes. This establishes a more level playing field where large and small vendors alike gain no advantages or disadvantages relative to the key assets of the Koha project.
Companies would continue to offer support services to libraries in much the way that currently happens. Sponsored development might be coordinated through the foundation.
Provide voluntary support to the foundation through sponsorship of user meetings.
Play a strong advisory role in the foundation.
As key stakeholders in the project, companies would be entitled to membership in the foundation. Some seats on the board of directors may be allocated to vendor representatives.
Note: I am not a stakeholder in Koha. Iím not involved in a library that uses it or a company that supports it. Iím just an interested observer offering a suggestion based on my experiences and observations.
Marshall Breeding Sep 15, 2009 10:04:16 Link to this thread
Unfortunately, librarians and library staff are so trained by the commercial software vendors that all software is developer-owned, that even Koha users are still under the mind-set that the companies offering support are in charge. After KohaCon last April, I was so disillusioned and frustrated. I really felt that the user group(s) were heading down the same path and working hard to get back into the 'normal' groove of being led by developers.
What can we do? Koha Libraries need to access Bugzilla more often to vote for changes, put in requests for new changes and generally work to support each other more.
The vision of the Koha Foundation as the clearinghouse for changes, etc. in the software would work well. Features and changes would be coordinated and contracts awarded to companies to develop once enough money was collected from sponsors. As for membership dues, you have to be a dues-paying member to be eligible to be on the board, but membership dues should not be required. Dues should also be scaled to match the library budget.
Lenora Oftedahl Sep 15, 2009 12:20:43
"The libraries that use the software are stakeholders of the highest level. Yet, they have not been well represented at the table for many of the strategic conversations that involve the future of Koha. Companies and developers so far have had the dominant voices."
Marshall, I take it that you see the establishment of a foundation as a corrective for this. My observation, looking at most projects, is that a foundation is important, but on its own it cannot address the governance issues you're describing. Not to argue with the general premise that a foundation is a good thing for a project to have.
Karen Schneider Sep 16, 2009 15:05:31
I am new to Koha and the Koha community. Recently we used Koha to automate a university library in Ethiopia. I know there is a growing interest for open source software in the developing world and the formation of a foundation would make libraries and IT professonals in the developing world part of the effort forward.
Tesfaye Bayu Sep 17, 2009 03:43:14