For quite some time now at OSS Watch we’ve struggled with the model of “Community Source” promoted by some projects within the Higher Education sector. Originating with Sakai, and then continuing with Kuali, the term always seemed confusing, given that it simply meant a consortium-governed project that released code under an open-source license.
As a governance model, a consortium differs from both a meritocracy (as practised by the Apache Software Foundation) or a benevolent dictatorship, or a single-company driven model. It prioritises agreement amongst managers rather than developers, for example.
We produced several resources (Community Source vs. Open Source and The Community Source Development Model) to try to disambiguate both the term and the practices that go along with it, although these were never particularly popular, especially with some of the people involved in the projects themselves. If anything I believe we erred on the side of being too generous.
However, all this is about to become, well, academic. Sakai merged with JaSig to form the Apereo Foundation, which is taking a more meritocratic route, and the most high-profile project using the Community Source model – the education ERP project Kuali – has announced a move to a company-based governance model instead.
I think my colleague Wilbert Kraan summed up Community Source quite nicely in a tweet:
‘Community source’ probably reassured nervous suits when OSS was new to HE, but may not have had much purpose since
Michael Feldstein also provides a more in-depth analysis in his post Community Source Is Dead.
There’s good coverage elsewhere of the Kuali decision, so I won’t reiterate it here:
- Collaborative that once criticised software companies becomes one [Chronicle]
- Kuali For-Profit: Change is an indicator of bigger issues [e-Literate]
A few months ago we had a conversation with Jisc about its prospect to alumnus challenge, where the topic of Kuali came up. Back then we were concerned that its governance model made it difficult to assess the degree of influence that UK institutions or Jisc might exercise without making a significant financial contribution (rather than, as in a meritocracy, making a commitment to use and develop the software).
Its hard to say right now whether the move to a for-profit will make things easier or more difficult – as Michael points out in his post,
Shifting the main stakeholders in the project from consortium partners to company investors and board members does not require a change in … mindset
We’ll have to see how the changes pan out in Kuali. But for now we can at least stop talking about Community Source. I never liked the term anyway.