Re: Public administrations

[Sri Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>]

In Oregon we had a person who tried to introduce a bill on using FOSS
software in govt.  It was fairly well covered in slashdot.  (it was also
where I heard that the Oregon legislature, not only know about slashdot
but some of them even read it!)

It would be great if we could get someone like him around get more
information about lobbying such solutions to govt.  

sri

On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 23:11 -0200, Sebastien Biot wrote:
> Thanks Claus for bringing up that topic. I have a few things to add to 
> the discussion based on my experience working for the state of Maryland 
> for about 4 years. I believe it applies to a wide range of state 
> administrative agencies in the US. I don't know how much it would apply 
> to other places.
> 
> 1. Gov. agencies are part of large(r) systems, bigger branches of the 
> government, which generally make a lot of decisions for them, especially 
> when it comes to IT. They don't necessarily decide what they buy or use. 
> There's a state-sanctioned web browser, a state-sanctioned office suite, 
> a state-sanctioned way of doing web development etc. It's not as bad as 
> it sounds but it's there and it's something to take into account.
> 
> 2. Gov. agencies have their own procurement channels. They enter into
> contractual relationships with big vendors who sell them software and
> hardware at whatever price have been negotiated (government prices). It 
> can be hard for outside people to get in. You need to meet certain 
> standards; you need to be able to play by their (the agencies') rules.
> 
> 3. Gov. agencies subcontract a lot. They usually pass along the 
> technology guidelines they were given to their contractors who happily 
> oblige. Contractors are therefore not encouraged to innovate and instead 
> go for proven solutions. This lack of originality is made worse by the 
> fact that state agencies are told that they have to act business-like 
> which usually translates into doing whatever the private sector is doing 
> however dumb or costly that may be.
> 
> 4. Gov. agencies are big on meeting standards. Their adoption of a given 
> technology is sometimes guided by the standards it meets or doesn't 
> meet. Businesses may have the option to compromise on those; 
> administrations often don't.
> 
> What does that all means in terms of marketing and promoting GNOME is an 
> interesting topic for debate. I would suggest the following:
> 
>   - Unless they are encouraged or told to innovate, gov. agencies don't. 
> Instead they tend to follow trends. If you want to sell GNOME, you 
> should sell it as a proven solution. GNOME has a pretty good track 
> record there I would think. The more legitimate and mainstream GNOME 
> appears to be, the more attractive it will be to those agencies.
> 
>   - Gov. agencies don't interact directly with "what's out there." 
> Instead they rely on intermediaries: contractors, vendors, whatever gov. 
> branch is above them, etc. That seems to indicate that there's not much 
> we (volunteers on a mailing list) can do to reach them. That's a job 
> better left to FOSS businesses or to the GNOME Foundation which can act 
> as such an intermediary and can provide the kind of respectability they 
> look for.
> 
> - One exception to the observation above is conferences and professional 
> meetings. Getting people to give talks about GNOME at some of those 
> would work. These conferences are not geeky or trendy events but boring 
> business conferences with large companies always well represented and 
> kissing ass as hard as they can. I don't know how we could get people in 
> there; maybe with the help of the Foundation?
> 
> - Gov. agencies can't afford to take risks (their purchasing powers are 
> limited, they are closely watched, etc...) and will buy known solutions 
> from known vendors. Not much we can do here unfortunately except perhaps 
> always keeping in mind in our marketing and promotional efforts that 
> mentioning (and pointing to) the availability of support is crucial. I 
> think that's a point which applies to other groups as well.
> 
> - Selling GNOME as a development platform to gov. agencies could be a 
> waste of time. They are usually on the receiving/purchasing end of the 
> development cycle. We should spare them the tech talk. That's also a 
> point which applies to other groups: mention development to developers 
> and to no one else unless they ask.
> 
> - We must make sure that we communicate well the standards GNOME 
> complies with and perhaps see which important ones we might be missing 
> and by how much.
> 
> - They are individuals in those agencies ready to rock the boat. We 
> should think about ways to help them. Two obvious ones come to my mind:
>    * provide a lot of nice documentation highlighting some of the points 
> above to show their boss;
>    * ask FOSS businesses to provide training and certification programs 
> -- training is another way agencies ensure they use and purchase serious 
> IT solutions. The idea of being "GNOME Certified" or something similar 
> might sound ridiculous to you but I have a feeling it would help.
> 
> That's all folks.
> 
> -- 
> Sebastien Biot - www.viralata.net
>           "mus in pice"