Response to the Federal govt RFI

[Gordon Chillcott]

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 03:27 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:


> Mike Kallies wrote:
> > I think after you describe this item, there's  not much point in
> > answering their other questions.
> Well, where I could, I repeatedly made the distinction and referred back 
> to the original point.
> 
> > They need to understand the difference, else they'll cherry-pick facts from your response to suit
> > whatever agenda they like such as:
> >   
> > "...we have serious concerns about the limitations, often hidden,
> > within free-proprietary software...."
> >
> > You know how people read these things.
> >   
> I have no problem with them picking out that quote, because it's true. I 
> would prefer them to avoid the category completely than to mix the two 
> (open source and free-proprietary) interchangably. In the original RFI 
> they deliberately combine the two and I made the point that this is a 
> mistake, That does not mean the other questions cannot be answered in 
> relation to open source.
> 
> 
> > On a side note, it disturbs me that they're talking about this stuff like they're talking about a vendor.
> That's what they know and understand and have always done. Part of the 
> purpose of the RFI (and part of my answer) requires that we tell them 
> that FOSS projects can't be treated as vendors and that the conventional 
> vendor/VAR relationship doesn't apply.
> 
> > They should be looking at it as participating in the community... which is what government should be doing.
> >   
> Then that is what the RFI should be advising.
> 
> I'll be satisfied if the feds start by simply supporting FOSS support 
> orgs who themselves are part of the community. This is a major culture 
> shift that can't happen overnight.
> 
> - Evan
> --

It would be wise, I think, to find out something about the Government's
procurement processes before diving too deeply into this.

It would also be wise to spend less time looking for hidden agendas and
spend some effort looking seriously at the questions that are being
asked here.

Three points:
Firstly, linux is in use already in some departments of the Government
of Canada. 
Secondly, the Government of Canada has a procurement process that,
although sometimes cumbersome, is mandated by law.  There is not a
culture, rather a set of rules they MUST follow.
Thirdly, there are, in fact, vendors who offer linux-based solutions and
open source support.

What they want, out of this, is a way manage procurement of open source
products (if I can use that term), and some understanding of the
ramifications.  And there are some.

This is a very good opportunity to address the concerns of a business
community that looks at open source products and sees something that
sounds too good to be true.  And they have worries.

Please remember where they've been getting their advice from up until
now.  And what they're going to be telling them - they downloaded this
thing too.

I suggest you use this as a chance to present a calm, reasoned response
to the concerns of a VERY large group of people who should be using open
source solutions.


Gordon Chillcott

> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists