what matters

[Sameer Verma]

Edward Cherlin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Sameer Verma <sverma at sfsu.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Albert Cahalan wrote:
>>  > It's clear that we aren't all here for the same thing.
>>  > Some wish to help all kids, or poor kids, or non-Western
>>  > kids. Some wish to advance freedom of speech, freedom from
>>  > EULA slavery, or freedom to learn heretical ideas.
>>  >
>>  > Some of us are, assuming good intentions, extremely innocent
>>  > regarding Microsoft. The historical record shows that those
>>  > who partner with Microsoft will be betrayed in the worst way.
>>  > Read "The Scorpion and the Frog" to understand Microsoft.
>>     
>
> He who sups with the Devil must e'en have a long spoon.
>
>   
>>  > To a very limited extent, I agree with the idea that we should
>>  > not be pedantic about free software.
>>     
>
> The community seems to be agreed that Microsoft can spend as much
> money as it likes trying to get Sugar running on Windows, but OLPC
> shouldn't divert resources from Linux to Windows unless perhaps
> Microsoft chooses to pay whoever is willing, and fund the project more
> broadly. As if!
>
>   
>>  For what its worth, here's something that might help in analyzing the
>>  situation some more. Its an analytical approach called "mission and core
>>  competencies (MCC) matrix".
>>     
>
> Thanks. I don't think that we have such a complex problem. 

My main reason for providing a pointer to the Mission and Core 
Competencies matrix was not for addressing complexity, but to perhaps 
help in clarifying the issue at hand. Some decisions are strategic, 
while others are tactical. If you look at the mission of OLPC at 
http://laptop.org/vision/mission/ you'll notice that it talks about 
education, "learning learning" the XO, constructionism, but nowhere does 
it mention Free and Open Source Software.

In its early days (based on what I read in the media), the project went 
to Microsoft, Apple, Dell, etc. for assistance, only to be either turned 
down or ridiculed, or some promise of help without commitment. FOSS came 
in much later. So, my take on this timeline is that FOSS came into the 
picture later (perhaps Walter was instrumental in this) and 
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_on_free/open_source_software was added 
around early 2006.

So, going back to the MCC structure (a better picture is at 
http://www.cipher-sys.com/HofHelp/Mcc/subsequent_adaptations_improvements.htm), 
the mission of OLPC is to further the education agenda, learning 
learning, etc. via the XO, and the OS to do all this does not look like 
a strategic decision, but a tactical one. They did not have the core 
competency to write an entire software stack for this purpose, so they 
outsourced it, just like they outsourced the 802.11s stuff. The major 
difference is that the software stack got outsourced not to a private 
firm, but to the FOSS community, which contributed to the project as a 
public commons effort. The GPL provides an exit strategy for the 
"community" to take it and run if the ship sinks...minus the XO, of course.

Once you add the trojan horse angle, things start to look different. We 
now have many stakeholders and many different missions intersect. Ed 
Cherlin/Earth Treasury has its own mission for example, (as he stated 
below), and Earth Treasury has to align with OLPC for competencies that 
it does not have (such as the XO). We all have our reasons. I'd like to 
see the journal in my everyday computing platform some day. Its a 
terrific feature. I'd also like for villages in India to have computers 
for education.

The project has had its problems. Update.1 is way behind schedule. The 
layout of the zooming interfaces have changed significantly, and that to 
me (personally) is troubling. But, these are managerial issues, that can 
be addressed by good communication. Oh, and communication goes both 
ways, doesn't it?

I still think that the implementation of the ideas put forth by OLPC 
into Sugar running on top of a Linux platform is by far the best option. 
Apart from the public commons aspect, it provides tremendous  
technological value. However, for FOSS to become a strong undercurrent 
in this project, the decision to use FOSS will have to be strategic, and 
not a tactical one.


> The
> questions appear to be
>
> * Should we sell in developed countries? Nicholas--Doesn't contribute
> to mission; me--Of course, to build a political base for foreign
> educational aid, to address our own poor, and to finance our other
> work.
>
> * Should we ally with Microsoft? Nicholas--It's such a brilliant
> strategy, and so obvious when I point it out; me--no way.
>
> * Should Nicholas discuss these matters with the community?
> Nicholas--What for?; me--Yes, unless you want to see the rest of us
> walk out and fork Sugar.
>
>   
To me, these questions don't appear mission-like. They sound more tactical.
> Anyway, nothing happens unless Nicholas decides to talk the the whole
> community. Then we can discuss the other two points. It isn't a
> question of who has which competencies, except for Nicholas to realize
> that he can't outsmart Microsoft, and that he has tried to
> over-optimize one variable out of an entire equation. And we should
> hire more programmers, a doc team, and a few others that Nicholas and
> the community generally agree on, and discuss what to do after that.
> Then maybe Walter and Ivan and a few other valuable contributors would
> be willing to discuss coming back.
>   

cheers,
Sameer

-- 
Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Information Systems
San Francisco State University
San Francisco CA 94132 USA
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
http://opensource.sfsu.edu/