OSS Watch Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, 16 September 2003

by Randolph Metcalfe on 1 October 2003

Introduction

Attendance and Action Summary

Present: Julian Bream, Paul Browning, Phill Camp, Paul David, Michael Fraser, Nicole Harris, Randy Metcalfe, Sebastian Rahtz, Alan Robiette, Andrew Savory, Caroline Halcrow, Ronnie Scott, George Vernon, Roger Whittaker, Scott Wilson

Apologies: Mike Banahan; Chris Cartledge; John Norman; Stephen Tanner

Chair: Alan Robiette

Action Summary:

  • members to comment on scoping study questionaire which would be circulated to the committee prior to distribution.
  • members to comment on summary of conference plan to be circulated to committee.
  • members to consider ways of raising awareness of OSS Watch through the services they represent, e.g. Links, news items, articles in newsletters, joint workshops, etc., and pass ideas on to Randy.

Welcome

The first advisory committee meeting of OSS Watch began with a welcome from Alan Robiette who was serving as chair for this meeting. Alan outlined the formation of the service and JISC’s role.

Introductions

All present introduced themselves and summarised their interest in free and open source software.

Election of Chair

Paul Browning was duly elected as Chair for the next 12 months.

Review of terms of reference

Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

A request was made to amend OSS to Free and OSS. It was acknowledged that wherever possible it made good sense to use the expression free and open source software but that it was unnecessary for the name OSS Watch to change.

A request was made to ensure that a clear definition of OSS is circulated wherever possible. This was endorsed. OSS Watch follows the standard definition maintained by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/).

Review of membership

Advisory committee membership.

It was suggested that representation from continental Europe might be useful for the advisory committee. Groups relevantly similar to JISC, such as TERENA and SURF (based in The Netherlands) were mooted, as well as possible links with the European Science Foundation. It was further noted that although the committee had proxy representation from UCISA, that organisation was not specifically represented. The chair eventually brought this discussion to a close thanking all members for their suggestions.

Manager’s Report

Sebastian summarised his written report. Key points:

  • The clear need for a guide to OSS licenses
  • Directory of active OS projects in UK HE/FE
  • Forum for discussion of OSS and desktop applications
  • Scoping study
  • Conference, 11 Dec 2003 with key themes of development and deployment
  • Outreach
  • Collaboration Michael Fraser also outlined the cataloguing of OSS applications

Discussion began with the issue of licences. It was made clear that JISC are aware of the lack of knowledge concerning the packaging of OSS which are applicable at the software design stage (e.g. ensuring no dependencies on non-OSS third party resources). There are often IPR issues at institutional level that require clarification, especially relating to the development of applications during the course of employment. The concern was raised that OSS Watch would need to be careful about seeming to give legal advice on the business of licenses and the suggestion was put forward of possibly seeking some form of collaboration with the JISC Legal Information Service (JLIS). It was also noted that the JISC Share Alike group, with which OSS Watch had already been collaborating, was the appropriate group within JISC for discussion of licencing issues.

It was noted that the office of the e-Envoy is seeking further consultation, especially on liability issues and a possible default OSS license for government funded R&D applications; they are already working with Research Councils UK (RC UK) and keen to work with OSS Watch.

Discussion regarding the scoping study began with the concern that the responses be representative and credible – especially relating to institutional policy. It was noted that getting particular answers from appropriate people within institutions can prove especially difficult. The scoping study deals with two different issues: procurement policy and the use of OSS and its further development. It will target IT managers (via UCISA and RSCs) and follow-up with sample site visits. It was noted that the JISC instititional support team has an extensive database of institutional contacts that may be consulted, and that the BECTA Champions may also be a useful group to contact.

The emphasis on desktop applications rather than server applications was questioned. It was noted that working with TheOpenCD was intended to plug a perceived gap.

It was suggested that in order for OSS Watch to serve the full breadth of its stakeholder communities, the website should have a section for decision makers which addresses issues such as total cost of ownership. Sebastian agreed and clarified that the current navigational structure on the website does not reveal the planned (but not yet completed) content of sections for each of OSS Watch’s stakeholder communities. It was noted that for website development the service might want to consider Plone for CMS (see JISC INFOnet which looks rather Plone-like and Warwickshire Police which doesn’t).

With respect to guidance materials being developed by OSS Watch, it was recommended that any such documents should be brief and clear in order to meet the need of the FE stakeholders. Sebastian agreed that just this kind of practical and usable guidance would be what OSS Watch would be developing.

Discussion concerning the 11 December conference focussed initially on the date of the conference. It was noted that the JISC would prefer that participants not be charged for attendance at JISC branded events, and that if this led to any difficulty in budgeting then OSS Watch’s programme manager should be consulted. The conference’s dual theme of development and deployment was considered and found to be unproblematic given that, as a first public event it is probably best to aim to be broad and reach out to as many constituents as possible. Other types of events, such as demonstrations or possibly even a 2-day conference, were considered for future public forums. The next conference following that in December is likely to be in May.

It was noted that OSS Watch is making an effort to collaborate with other JISC services in order to maximise its reach. The UK Mirror Service and CETIS each suggested points of further contact with OSS Watch and other services represented were equally positive about possible joint ventures.

Scoping Study

See discussion above.

ACTION: members to comment on scoping study questionaire which would be circulated to the committee prior to distribution.

December Conference

See discussion above.

ACTION: members to comment on summary of conference plan to be circulated to committee early October.

Comms

Randy presented on communications thus far. Key points:

  • Soft launch
  • Results of mini-survey
  • Future plans and call for assistance from Advisory Committee

Discussion: It was noted that James Dalziel from Macquarrie University did an entertaining presentation on the relationship between open standards and open software and would be worth making contacting (see http:www.melcoe.mq.edu.au/documents/OpenStandardspaper.doc). It was also noted that O’Reilly would be publishing ‘Making Sense of the Bazaar’ in the forthcoming year.

Planned guidance for IT managers, developers and end-users is clearly needed. However, a briefing document on licensing is a priority; followed by what OSS means for users in a particular role.

It was suggested that the service provide a news service akin to the CETIS news service but relating to educational use and development of OSS, with announcements to email list and RSS feed. It might also be useful to aggregate other newsfeeds based on role of user.

It was noted that OSS Watch has a role to advise the JISC, within which at least three major committees are discussing OSS. And it was suggested that there is a need to identify the amount of resources dedicated to OSS development within UK (not just projects but contribution to other OSS).

ACTION: members to consider ways of raising awareness of OSS Watch through the services they represent, e.g. Links, news items, articles in newsletters, joint workshops, etc., and pass ideas on to Randy.

AOB

None.

Date of next meeting

25 February 2004, London. 11:00 – 15:30 with lunch provided.