A Guidebook for Programs Serving Cultural and Scientific Heritage LYRASIS holds the copyright to this Guidebook and provides it for free use, sharing, copying, distribution and adaption with attribution via the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability
A Guidebook for Programs Serving Cultural and Scientific Heritage
February 2018
This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services – Grant LG-73-17-0005-17. It Takes a Village Project Co-Directors and Guidebook Authors
Laurie Gemmill Arp Megan Forbes Director, Collections Program Manager Services & Community CollectionSpace Supported Software LYRASIS
It Takes a Village Advisory Group
Rob Cartolano Tom Cramer Michele Kimpton Katherine Skinner Ann Baird Whiteside Associate Vice President Assistant University Director of Executive Director Librarian and for Technology Librarian and Director, Business Development Educopia Institute Assistant Dean for and Preservation Digital Library Systems and Senior Strategist Information Services Columbia University & Services Digital Public Library Harvard University Libraries Stanford University of America Graduate School of Design
Cover photo by David Jorre on Unsplash; Group and whiteboard photographs included in this guidebook were taken at the Baltimore forum by Laurie Arp.
2 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those who contribute their time and effort to make open source communities grow and prosper. It takes a village to create, manage, and sustain these efforts, many of which are critical to the fields of cultural and scientific heritage.
Our advisory group supported us with thoughtful advice and expertise. We appreciate their unflagging support and guidance.
The forum and survey participants gave of their time and their experiences, and embraced the forum activities wholeheartedly in an effort to create this work. We particularly thank the case study authors for sharing their stories.
Our forum facilitator, Christina Drummond, was dedicated to making sure we had the best possible forum to serve the larger grant and community goals.
Thanks to the entire LYRASIS team for their assistance and patience while we worked on this project. We want to especially thank Robert Miller, Carissa Egan, John Herbert, and Sandy Nyberg.
This project and publication would not have been possible without generous funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. We appreciate their support.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 3 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Table of Contents
Executive Summary______5 Facet: Resources______26 Background______6 Phase I: Creating Consistency______26 Phase II: Diversification______27 ITAV Project Assumptions and Activity Summary______7 Phase III: Stable, but Not Static______28 Using the Guidebook: Resource Resources and Tools______29 Phase and Facet Definitions______8 Case Studies______30 Defining Phase I: Getting Started______8 DuraSpace by Michele Kimpton Defining Phase II: Growing/ and Jonathan Markow______30 Getting Established______8 Specify by James Beach______31 Defining Phase III: Stable, But Not Static______8 Facet: Community Engagement______32 Defining Facets______9 Phase I: Getting Beyond Initial Stakeholders___ 32 Sustainability Wheel______10 Phase II: Establishing Community Engagement Infrastructure______33 Facet: Governance______11 Phase III: Evolving Community Engagement___ 35 Phase I: Establishing Governance______11 Community Engagement Resources Phase II: Stabilizing Governance______12 and Tools______36 Phase III: Evolving Governance______13 Case Studies______37 Governance Resources and Tools______14 ArchivesSpace by Christine Di Bella______37 Case Studies______15 Vega by Cheryl Ball______39 Islandora by Mark Jordan______15 Concluding Remarks______40 Material Order by Ann Baird Whiteside_____ 16 Appendices ______41 OLE by Michael Winkler______17 A. Sustainability Worksheet______41 VuFind: Community History by Demian Katz and Christopher Hallberg_____ 19 B. Resources______42 Facet: Technology______20 C. Forum Participant List______44 Phase I: Laying the Groundwork______20 D. OSS Program Survey Results______46 Phase II: Expanding and Integrating______21 Phase III: Preparing for Change______22 Technology Resources and Tools______23 Case Studies______24 Fedora by David Wilcox______24 LOCKSS by Nicholas Taylor______25
4 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Executive Summary
This Guidebook is designed to serve as a practical reference source to help open source software programs serving cultural and scientific heritage organizations plan for long-term sustainability, ensuring that commitment and resources will be available at levels sufficient for the software to remain viable and effective as long as it is needed.
One of the most significant themes of this Guidebook is that The Guidebook is intended for a broad audience. While sustainability is not a linear process, with set beginning and certain paths may be of more interest than others, we would end points. Program sustainability shifts and evolves over recommend reading through each of the facets before time across a number of phases and facets. The phases returning to the one that aligns most closely with a specific speak to where a program is in its lifecycle: getting started, role, e.g., governance for a program manager, technology growing, or stable but not static. The facets describe the for a technical lead, engagement for a community manager, different components of sustainability, each of which is or resources for an administrator. The worksheet in critical to overall program health, but may have different Appendix A can help identify the specific phase a program timelines, goals, and resource needs. The facets deemed is in along each facet. most critical by the Guidebook’s authors and contributors The open source landscape is wide and varied. Bringing are: Governance, Technology, Resources (Financial and open source programs serving cultural and scientific Human), and Community Engagement. heritage together under one shared umbrella can provide Sections of the Guidebook will: us all with the power to better advocate for our needs, develop shared sustainability strategies, and provide our l Define the phases and facets of sustainability; communities with the information needed to assess and l Identify goals, characteristics, and common roadblocks contribute to the sustainability of the programs they for each phase in each facet; depend on. l Provide guidance for moving an OSS program to the next phase in a given facet, with the understanding that the same program may be in different phases along different facets of sustainability; and l Highlight case studies and additional resources to help a program’s research and decision-making process.
Results of the exercise to determine the most critical facets as voted upon by forum participants.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 5 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Background
Organizations that support cultural and scientific heritage – the archives, libraries and museums that collect, preserve and provide access to the artifacts, specimens, documents, data, and other tangible and intangible knowledge of communities – are investing significant resources into open source software (OSS).
Technology supports mission critical functions for cultural community and OSS product now may not work as well in and scientific heritage organizations in the acquisition, the future or at all for another community or product. OSS organization, description, preservation, dissemination, and requires continuous attention to sustainability to ensure that management of collections, content and information. The commitment and resources will be available at adequate tenets of OSS – that is, software that can be freely accessed, levels for the software to remain viable and effective shared, used, changed and/or modified1 – fit well with for as long as it is needed. Such continuous attention is the missions of organizations dedicated to documenting, challenging for community-based OSS, with the diverse preserving, and providing access to cultural and scientific perspectives, capacities, levels of engagement, and priorities heritage. Libraries, archives, and museums create and among potentially many stakeholders. adopt OSS as a way to customize and adapt technology to There are a variety of largely ad hoc OSS sustainability their own community’s needs. In addition, many publicly models currently operating in the cultural and scientific funded organizations and grant-making agencies prefer, and heritage sector, each working within specific communities sometimes require, that new technology be open source, as and impacted by where the OSS application is in its an investment in the public good. lifecycle. As cultural and scientific heritage organizations Much of the OSS created and used by cultural and scientific become increasingly invested in and dependent on OSS- heritage organizations is developed and maintained through based technologies, understanding the complexities of a community support model that is largely field- and sustainability becomes more important. To deepen the sector-specific. The open source license may be provided cultural and scientific heritage field’s understanding of by an individual or institution, but a larger community of sustainability and encourage OSS programs to share and users, programmers, administrators, governing agencies, learn from each other, LYRASIS applied to and received and sponsors are involved in setting development priorities, support from the Institute of Museum and Library Services providing user support, fixing bugs, defining policies, (IMLS) to convene a national meeting of OSS stakeholders encouraging adoption, and otherwise maintaining a viable (National Leadership Grants for Libraries award LG-73-17- product. This is often referred to as “community-based 0005-17). The “It Takes a Village: Open Source Software open source software.” This community and its diversity Sustainability Models” forum (ITAV) was held on October is a critical factor in the long-term sustainability of OSS, 4-5, 2017. The goal of the grant project and the forum was ensuring the software’s ability to upgrade, adapt and grow to develop a guidebook for new and existing OSS initiatives to meet new needs and evolve with advances in technology. to strengthen planning, promotion, and assessment of Some OSS initiatives serving cultural and scientific heritage sustainability. In addition to providing OSS stakeholders with have been very successful at creating robust products a path to evaluate the health of their software, the project with widespread adoption and engaged communities, sought to provide potential adopters of OSS applications while others have struggled to determine what strategies with a structure within which to measure sustainability and will work once development funding ends or when costly risk, and identify opportunities for growth. This Guidebook upgrades are needed. Programs that are initially successful represents the combined contributions of forum advisors might struggle later as other technologies evolve to offer and participants, who shared their experiences and new features and functionality, diverting stakeholder knowledge to help define a sustainability framework for the support. A sustainability strategy that works for one field as well as their own OSS programs.
1 See the Open Source Initiative for the complete Open Source Definition at https://opensource.org/osd
6 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
ITAV Project Assumptions and Activity Summary
While libraries, archives, and museums use a wide variety of OSS (WordPress, Linux, MySQL relational databases, etc.), the assessment and forum focused on OSS developed specifically to serve cultural and scientific heritage organizations. The ITAV project assumed that while there is no single approach to sustainability, there may be common threads among programs serving cultural and scientific heritage organizations that would lead to common needs, and strategies for meeting those needs. The project also assumed that sustainability strategies evolve as the OSS life cycle progresses, technology advances, and community needs change.
A volunteer project advisory group provided advice and Community Supported Software, and Megan Forbes, in regard to which OSS initiatives to invite to the ITAV CollectionSpace Program Manager, selected and invited 37 forum, the forum agenda, and content of this report. This individuals representing 27 cultural and scientific heritage group also served pivotal roles as discussion leaders and OSS initiatives to the forum. Diverse perspectives were facilitators during the ITAV forum. Advisors were: Rob sought by including a mix of program/governance leaders, Cartolano, Associate Vice President for Technology and community leaders (users), and technical leaders. The Preservation for Columbia University Libraries; Tom Cramer, participant list of 49 attendees is included in Appendix C. Assistant University Librarian and Director of Digital Library Prior to the ITAV forum, background information was Systems & Services at Stanford University; Michele Kimpton, collected from the invited OSS programs to provide context Director of Business Development and Senior Strategist for for the forum discussions. Information was collected in such the Digital Public Library of America; Katherine Skinner, areas as mission and purpose of the OSS, date of first and Executive Director, Educopia Institute; and Ann Baird most recent releases, size and make-up of the community Whiteside, Librarian and Assistant Dean for Information using the OSS, licensing terms, where the OSS is currently Services, Harvard University Graduate School of Design. housed/hosted, size of the development community and a description of how development is managed, governance The advisory group and ITAV project co-directors Laurie structure and roles, current sources of financial support, and Gemmill Arp, LYRASIS Director of Collections Services investments made throughout the software’s lifecycle. The compiled results of the background survey are included in Appendix D. In addition to providing a means for sharing information among participants, the background survey responses inspired directions and themes for the forum discussions. The agenda format was focused around small working groups that were formed, disbanded, and reformed with new participants each session to spawn more engagement. For each topic, the project’s advisory group facilitated open and direct conversations about project lifecycles, governance, financing, resources, community building, outreach and communications, and bumps in the road. For a worksheet that replicates one of the activities and can help identify your program’s place, see Appendix A. Consultant/ Facilitator Christina Drummond assisted with agenda design and served as overall facilitator. Presentations given during the forum are available on the It Takes a Village website at https://www.lyrasis.org/technology/Pages/IMLS-OSS.aspx.
James Beach describing Specify’s financial shift.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 7 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Using the Guidebook: Phase and Facet Definitions
To get the most out of the Guidebook, begin by reading through the following definitions for each phase and facet. Once you have identified the facet you’d like to learn more about, and the phase that best describes your program’s current status, jump to that section of the book to view core goals, characteristics, common concerns, roadblocks, and potential objectives. Outside resources – books, websites, journal articles, etc. – are also listed for each facet.
Defining Phase I: Getting Started Main themes include: l Transitioning control from founding stakeholders and Phase I is generally used for OSS programs that are at the sponsors to multiple stakeholders representative of the early stages of planning, design, and development. At this growing community; phase, work is often grant funded and therefore focused l Creating structure, process, policies, and channels for on fulfilling the terms of the grant. Program staff are often engagement; and pulled from the initial stakeholders, and there is a strong l focus on determining the core values of the software Increasing transparency. community. In the event of a major transition, such as a technology re-architecture, a mature OSS program may Defining Phase III: Stable, But Not Static return to the Getting Started Phase along a specific facet. Phase III reflects a more mature program, one that has Main themes include: reached a more established stage with some predictable l Focused goals; elements (such as revenue streams, business apparatus, l Small set of strongly committed stakeholders, typically and/or technology), but in which stakeholders will need to one sponsoring organization; and be vigilant, as it is easy to be complacent and potentially l Seeking agreement on core values and alignment around stagnate or be replaced by more novel technologies. This is a core purpose. the phase at which things are going well, but may or may not stay that way. Continued progress may require shifting back to the beginning of a facet. For example, the technology Defining Phase II: Growing/Getting platform chosen ten years ago, which took a long time to Established build and is now fully functional, may be out of date in the next two or three years. Fully updating the platform may Phase II is the broadest in terms of breadth of range, as require a return to Phase I in the technology facet. This may elements of an OSS program can take a long time to grow have a ripple effect in other facets as well. While resources along a number of pathways. This can be considered might have been sufficient for supporting the existing the “danger zone” – programs can easily stall here or go technology platform, gathering the resources for a major away entirely if their efforts fail to take root and engage overhaul might involve shifting the resource model. community members. In this phase, it is critical to complete Main themes include: the transition from grant or niche project to sustainable l Ongoing measurement to assess functionality, impact, program. Each program needs to find its own “special and engagement; sauce” or unique blend of qualities to work for its own l Flexibility to modify/adapt; community. During Phase II (if not before), it is critical to set up collaborative tools to empower engaged stakeholders. l Level of committed resources; Program staff and governance may need to let go of some l Potential for offshoots and mergers; and control to enable other stakeholders to fully engage and l Acknowledgement that the community may need to go take part in ownership of the program. back to Phase I or II for renewal.
8 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Using the Guidebook: Phase and Facet Definitions
GOVERNANCE TECHNOLOGY Defining Facets There are many elements that go into OSS sustainability, but in the course of ITAV forum discussions, most participants coalesced around four main facets: governance, technology, resources, and community engagement. Each are described more fully below.
COMMUNITY RESOURCES ENGAGEMENT
Defining the Facet: Governance Defining the Facet: Resources
“A governance model describes the roles that project In order to launch, grow, and thrive, OSS programs need participants can take on and the process for strategic and resources both human and fiscal. Human resources tactical decision making within the project. In addition, it encompass engineers writing code, community members describes the ground rules for participation in the project providing use cases, colleagues or consultants providing and the processes for communicating and sharing within the assistance with strategic planning, or organizational homes project team and community.”2 with fiscal stewardship. Financial resources come in and go out in a wide variety of ways – in via contributions, grants, dues, sponsorships, etc., and out via salaries, servers, Defining the Facet: Technology telecommunications, and overhead.
The core of each of these programs is open source software or systems serving cultural and scientific heritage Defining the Facet: Community organizations. There are parallels with proprietary software Engagement development processes, but working within the open source world brings its own challenges around community, The Community Engagement facet reflects efforts to resources, and governance that affect the software facilitate and foster involvement within a community. It is development process. focused on encouraging users to become stakeholders. Those who have a sense of investment and ownership become champions who want the program to grow Nota bene: For the purposes of this report, we’ve and succeed. A component of this facet also includes created bright lines between the facets. The real communication and outreach efforts to the community itself world, of course, is never so clean. In reality, facets as well as the wider world of decision makers, potential overlap, prop each other up, and may have competing users, funding agencies, and others. or complementary aims. The goal of the Guidebook is not to imply that each facet can be moved along independently; rather, it is to counter the idea that sustainability is a monolith, and that in fact by breaking it into facets it can be easier to define, plan, and evaluate our programs.
2 Gardler, Ross and Gabriel Hanganu. “Governance Models.” OSS Watch. http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels (accessed November 30, 2017).
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 9 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Sustainability Wheel
GOVERNANCE TECHNOLOGY
TING STAR ET TE G D
PHASE 1
S
T A
B
P
L 2
H E E A B S S G U E A N T 3 H I P N W O O T R ST G ATIC
COMMUNITY RESOURCES ENGAGEMENT
COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES ENGAGEMENT
Phase I: Establishing Phase I: Laying the Phase I: Creating Phase I: Getting Beyond Working with original Groundwork Consistency Initial Stakeholders engineers, project staff, or In design, pre-release or Funded by single Focused on primary organization. Go to page 11. early beta testing phase; organization, grant-funded stakeholders; lack of small set of early adopters. or volunteer operated. engagement with broader Phase II: Stabilizing Go to page 20. Go to page 26. communities. Go to page 32. Functional but limited in one or more aspects. Phase II: Expanding Phase II: Diversification Phase II: Establishing Go to page 12. and Integrating Distributed resourcing; CE Infrastructure Have more than one public meeting expenses, small Determining how to facilitate Phase III: Evolving release. Go to page 21. number of revenue streams. engagement that works for Strong management Go to page 27. community. Go to page 33. structures; not necessarily Phase III: Preparing formal governance. for Change Phase III: Stable, Phase III: Evolving CE Go to page 13. In production, well-adopted, but not Static Established infrastructure to supported. Technology stack Diverse staff support and enable engagement. stable. May be looking to next income streams; focused on Go to page 35. generation. Go to page 22. long-range strategy. Go to page 28.
10 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase I: Establishing Governance
Facet: Governance
Phase I: Establishing Governance
Core Goal Moving Forward: Plan and implement the governance model or models that Objectives best reflect the values of the program and community. l Define a need for Characteristics governance Phase I programs are generally still working with their Program staff may ask and answer original software engineers, project staff, funder, or a series of questions to determine what type of sponsoring organization. The application may not have governance structures are necessary, such as: Where end users yet, leading to a “good faith over governance” is the program having issues that a consensus policy approach. Although it may be unclear what type of could help mitigate? Is there tension between functional governance model a community wants or needs, making and technical teams that requires a conflict resolution plans early in a lifecycle can contribute positively to a mechanism? Are potential code contributors unsure of program’s overall sustainability. the process? Do community members receive regular updates about the program? How is the community engaged with respect to governance and what role do Governance is not one-size-fits-all. they represent?
l Review existing governance models Concerns and Roadblocks Examples of existing governance models to evaluate Program staff may be concerned that governance will can be found in the resources section of this Guidebook. remove the decision-making process from the primary To learn about models in use at other OSS programs stakeholders or those who are doing the day-to-day work, serving cultural and scientific heritage, reach out to their slow down the pace of development, or that efficient staff and community members – the participant list for operations will be bogged down in bureaucracy. These the forum that led to this Guidebook is a great start are legitimate concerns. It is critical to understand that (Appendix C). Consider convening an advisory group to governance is not one-size-fits-all. Programs must do the assist with the governance development process. hard work of understanding what types of governance models are out there, and what the benefits and drawbacks l Select the governance model that works best now of each are in relationship to the community they want for the program to serve with the OSS program, in order to choose the Once the program’s needs have been defined and approach that best serves the program and community. governance options reviewed, draft a governance model. Put it to the test with use cases from the program’s day- to-day work. Will the draft model provide pathways to solve the issues identified? It is okay to start small and evolve governance over time as needed.
l Communicate changes to stakeholders After the plan has been drafted and approved by the governance team, share it with program stakeholders, current users, and potential users. A governance plan should be easily findable and understood by the people it affects – users, contributors, funders, potential adopters, and others.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 11 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase II: Stabilizing Governance
Facet: Governance
Phase II: Stabilizing Governance
Core Goal Moving Forward: Evaluate existing program governance to identify strengths Objectives and weaknesses, and determine whether current structures l Document existing support the needs of a growing program. governance policies Characteristics Make sure that existing Phase II program governance can best be described as policies for code contribution, technical roadmapping, functional, but limited in one or more aspects. Documented strategic planning, policy decision-making, etc., are all policies and procedures for community contributions, documented and available for the community to access technical oversight, and budgeting exist, but often still and use. Even if you don’t have formal governance in exhibit a strong influence from program founders, funders, specific areas, documenting how program decisions are and/or specific staff or community members. Moving a made is still a useful exercise and valuable for building program forward requires succession planning to ensure trust within the community. program continuity. l Evaluate each element of existing governance Concerns and Roadblocks Once you have proper documentation, ask staff and the Governance is a balancing act. Governance adds overhead, community to evaluate if the structure and policies are and when a program is growing, it may seem like too much. working. Are the needs of critical stakeholders effectively Ceding decision-making authority to community members addressed? If not, then why not? Is the policy resilient or advisory groups can lead to a loss of autonomy among – would it still work if a key program or community program staff or sponsors. Governance can slow down the member left? Have confidence in de-prioritizing, pace of development. Programs need a clear strategic vision sunsetting, or changing the scope of governance policies for the application and community to properly evaluate that aren’t working. It can often be helpful to look for whether governance policies and processes are contributing outside advice to evaluate governance policies and to the success and value of an OSS program or adding an processes. unnecessary burden. l Increase level of community engagement To avoid an echo chamber where governance appears to be working because it is working well for the It is not uncommon for a program to program team, look to increase the level of community outgrow its founding or sponsoring engagement with the program. This may mean adding organization. formal volunteer positions or advisory groups. Improved documentation may bring new contributors into the fold. Existing community members may be enlisted in outreach efforts to gather more program leaders.
l Evaluate long-term home organization options It is not uncommon for a program to outgrow its founding or sponsoring organization. Many open source programs explore expanding partnerships, or engaging fiscal sponsors or nonprofits to serve as home or sponsoring organizations providing administrative structure around program activities.
12 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase III: Evolving Governance
Facet: Governance
Phase III: Evolving Governance
Core Goal Moving Forward: Continue to evaluate and evolve the program governance Objectives model to keep up with new technologies, communities, l Support consistent and collaborators. structures Consistent governance structures Programs should not confuse consistency provide the community with a trusted place for making contributions of time, effort, and funds, and with stagnation. help new implementers overcome resistance to open source solutions at their institutions. It can be beneficial to have written “job” descriptions for Board members Characteristics or other elected leaders, so that their responsibilities are Phase III OSS programs benefit from strong management clear, both to them and the broader OSS community. structures, although not all have formal governance. This also facilitates succession planning. Training Many are part of umbrella organizations that provide the opportunities for boards are available (e.g. BoardSource), structures needed to move initiatives forward, such as and can be useful for those who are new to OSS marketing and communications, fiscal stewardship, and program governance. grant writing. Phase III programs generally have tried-and- tested business models, which lead to more predictability l Continue to evaluate and evolve governance and a better ability to plan ahead. practices Programs should not confuse consistency with Concerns and Roadblocks stagnation. In order to support program expansion, new Phase III programs often expand their focus outside – partnerships, and worthy collaborations, governance outside their country of origin for new communities and practices must evolve to meet the needs of growing and implementers, outside their domains for new partners and changing communities. Programs should continue to opportunities. With these shifts in focus, programs without engage in regular evaluations of governance models as strong management and governance structures risk mission priorities, funding streams, and technologies shift. drift or losing focus on core functionality. Governance must evolve to adapt to new cultures and languages. l Expand community participation in governance Well established programs should ensure that their governance representation matches the makeup of their community and key stakeholders. It is easy to be dominated by a few well-funded community members. Having participants take on leading roles in working groups or councils can lead to senior leadership positions or “train-the-trainer” style onboarding for new participants in program governance, which can help mitigate this issue.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 13 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Resources and Tools
Governance Resources and Tools l Benkler, Yochai. The Penguin and the Leviathan: How Governance documentation examples: Cooperation Triumphs over Self-Interest. New York: l “Apache Corporate Governance Overview.” Apache Crown Business, 2011. Foundation. Accessed 1 February 2018. l “Boardsource Home.” BoardSource. Accessed 1 February http://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/. 2018. https://boardsource.org/. l “ArchivesSpace Governance Board and Councils.” l “Community Explorer.” REALISE Project. Accessed ArchivesSpace. Accessed 1 February 2018. http:// 1 February 2018. http://fullmeasure.co.uk/REALISE/. archivesspace.org/governance-board-and-councils/. l Fay, Randy. “How do Open Source Communities Govern l “Fedora Governance Model.” Fedora. Accessed 1 Themselves?” RandyFay.com. Accessed 1 February 2018. February 2018. http://fedorarepository.org/governance. https://randyfay.com/content/how-do-open-source- l “MetaArchive Resources.” MetaArchive. Accessed communities-govern-themselves. 1 February 2018. https://metaarchive.org/documentation- l Gardler, Ross and Gabriel Hanganu. “Governance resources/. Models.” OSS Watch. Accessed 1 February 2018. http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels. l Resnick, Pete. “On Consensus and Humming in the IETF.” Internet Engineering Task Force. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282.
OSS organizational homes and incubators: l “Apereo Incubation Process.” Apereo. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://www.apereo.org/content/ apereo-incubation-process. l “DuraSpace What We Do: Projects.” DuraSpace. Accessed 1 February 2018. http://www.duraspace.org/ whatwedoprojects. l “Educopia Institute: Our Work.” Educopia Institute. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://educopia.org/about- us/our-work. l “LYRASIS Open Source Organizational Homes.” LYRASIS. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://www.lyrasis.org/ technology/Pages/open-source-org-homes.aspx. l “Software Freedom Conservancy Projects.” Software Freedom Conservancy. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://sfconservancy.org/projects/.
Whiteboard notes captured the forum discussion on governance and organizational shifts.
14 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Governance Case Studies
Guidebook case studies provide first-hand accounts from forum participants about their program’s work toward sustainability. Governance case studies are from the Islandora, Material Order, OLE, and VuFind programs.
Islandora
By Mark Jordan https://islandora.ca/ Islandora’s governance model Individuals participate in other ways. The most common, offers opportunities for and easiest, is answering other users’ questions in the institutions and individuals to discussion groups. Other ways include testing bug fixes, participate in the community at joining the biweekly committers’ calls, volunteering at a variety of levels. Institutions an Islandora Camp, and becoming involved in the can join the Islandora Foundation semiannual software releases as documenters, auditors, at the Partner, Collaborator, or or release managers. Member level. At each of these We find that this two-part model works well. Institutions levels, an institution commits to can participate by helping support the Islandora Foundation paying a membership fee but financially (and gain a direct voice in governance at the also earns the privilege of appointing a representative to same time), while individuals can become involved in the the Islandora Foundation Board of Directors, the Islandora more general Islandora community in ways that require a Coordinating Committee, and the Islandora Technical variety of levels of commitment. Advisory Group (the fee and the committee depends on the level of membership). Each of these bodies has a Looking forward, the Islandora Foundation is working specific focus: the Board is primarily concerned with legal on refining its strategic goals for 2018 so that they and financial aspects of the Islandora community, the articulate achievable ways to improve our software and Coordinating Committee acts as the operational governing to strengthen and broaden our community. The new committee for the Foundation’s activities, and the Technical goals will highlight even more ways for institutions and Advisory Group provides recommendations regarding individuals to participate in our community’s governance Islandora’s technical roadmap. and sustainability.
“Institutions can participate by helping support the Islandora Foundation financially … while individuals can become involved in the more general Islandora community.”
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 15 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Governance Case Studies
Material Order
By Ann Baird Whiteside https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/deploy/ Material+Order The Material Order Consortium level structures around it (RLG) and the other which was very grew out of a collaboration informal (one reason it did not survive over time). between the Harvard University In early 2016, we were led to a consultant who had strengths Graduate School of Design (GSD), in identifying the needs of “start-up” organizations. We the Fleet Library at the Rhode hired the consultant to help us map out the first few years Island School of Design (RISD), of Material Order as a full consortium. Our work with the and CollectionSpace to design a consultant helped us to articulate our vision and mission, collection management system for and the scope of the consortium. Further work also outlined materials samples collections. The a complete organizational structure – governing structure, team developed a Materials Profile requirements for participation, benefits of participation, and in CollectionSpace based upon earlier work between GSD- intellectual property rights. We developed a governance RISD. The earlier work included in-depth studies of the GSD structure that outlined charges for all potential sub-groups, written Materials Classification Protocol, which developed operating principles, and deliverables – from the steering into a broader and more relevant materials taxonomy and team through working groups. database schema. Key concepts of the taxonomy provide multiple points of access to meet material research needs For the year and a half after we drafted foundational – composition, form, properties, material ecology, process, documentation for the consortium, we felt that given we were typical uses, and associated geo-locations. In 2016, we opened the doors to institutions hosting materials samples “… Because we laid our groundwork in developing a collections across the US with the framework early on, we have something to fall back on.” statement that Material Order provides a community-based approach to management and access to design still only two organizations, the prescriptive structure that we materials collections utilizing and developing standards had developed was unnecessary. and best practices. This includes an open source collection management database and an access system that allows In the last year, we have had several institutions express searching across international materials collections to support interest in the consortium and we are in the process of research and applications in the design fields. Current work bringing two new consortium members into the organization. in 2018 includes bringing in additional collections, and the This is leading us to think about governance issues again, and development of a user front-end. because we laid our groundwork in developing a framework early on, we have something to fall back on. As the GSD and RISD were developing the concept of a consortium of materials collections, we understood that Having guidance as we started the consortium helped we were entering into the development of an organization, us think through how we want to work as a consortium, and that we were going to require tools and processes setting the stage for our future. In 2018, we will begin to support a consortium if it is to be viable. We had team implementing some of the formal structure of the members who had previously been involved in consortia consortium as collective decisions will need to be made that shared technology tools, one project of which had high regarding further development.
16 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Governance Case Studies
Open Library Environment (OLE)
By Michael Winkler https://www.openlibraryenvironment.org/ The Open Library Environment budget requirements with a mix of grants and self-funding (OLE) formed in late 2008 under that mobilized over 7M USD by 2015. funding from the Andrew W. In 2015, the Kuali Foundation community undertook a Mellon Foundation and leadership review of its open source business. Their Board determined from Duke University. OLE that a new business model was necessary to improve conducted community workshops software quality and uptake. The Foundation formed a to determine the interest in a for-profit corporation, KualiCo, to “professionalize” software community-supported, open development and implementation. While retaining an open source library management source license going forward, Kuali software products would system to replace increasingly seek to have an exclusive relationship with KualiCo as the monopolistic market choices. The review of the workshops sole service provider. Further, the Kuali Foundation decided and input of hundreds of librarians found solid support and to stop development and support for the critical middleware enthusiasm for an open source solution. component, Kuali Rice, on which Kuali OLE was developed. Encouraged by these outcomes, in 2010 OLE and a new These changes at the Kuali Foundation prompted a moment set of partner libraries formed the OLE Partnership and of reflection for the OLE Partners, assessing our community, sought further funding from the Mellon Foundation to our resources, and our software. We found that while we pursue building a next-generation, open source library were successful as a community with over seven years of management system with utility and availability to libraries collaboration, growth and production, our software was worldwide. The OLE Partners sought membership in the difficult to implement and operate, we were missing critical Kuali Foundation, a not-for-profit organization with a functionality required to encourage further adoption of the mission to deliver open source administrative software for software, and we had failed to internalize sufficient technical higher education. The OLE Partners prospered under the understanding of our software to allow delivery of our vision administrative umbrella of the Kuali Foundation, adding of modular and flexible software for widescale adoption. five new members and developing and releasing our first The decision by the Kuali Foundation to abandon the production release in 2013. By 2015, three of the OLE Kuali Rice middleware would require a complete refactoring Partners had deployed the Kuali OLE software to manage of our software, and the OLE Partners had few available their libraries. resources to begin that task. Additionally, the OLE Partners The OLE Partners adopted the Kuali community governance felt that the new Kuali business model did not match model that included a governing board of directors that the OLE community’s values for openness nor with the oversees vision, goals, and resourcing for the partnership. need to encourage a rich and diverse commercial OLE formed functional and technical councils to guide support ecosystem. specifications and requirements for developing software. Coincident with these assessments about the state of The Partners hired a project management team to the Kuali OLE community was a new opportunity for coordinate the activities and operations of the project, collaboration through a partnership with EBSCO Information with development outsourced to a commercial partner to Services. Together, we have developed concepts for what provide velocity and deep software development expertise. has become the FOLIO project and community. FOLIO The Kuali community was based on a buy-in model of was to be a “green field” development thus addressing the membership and relied on participant institutions to bring technical debt resident in the Kuali middleware stack. sufficient capital to the project to underwrite the cost of software development. The OLE Partners fulfilled our (Continues on page 18)
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 17 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Governance Case Studies
Open Library Environment (OLE) (Continued)
EBSCO and Index Data as partners bring new resources to releases in 2018, and potential implementations in 2019. blend with OLE resources to marshal sufficient capacity Our business model is still evolving, but we are adopting a to undertake new software development. The FOLIO hybrid model of mixing cash contributions with contributed community model of wide inclusiveness and low barriers staffing. The lessons that we learned during this hard to participation – that encourages a growing and healthy turn can be summarized into several primary takeaways. ecosystem of librarians, developers, and service providers – OLE is powered by the commitments of its Partners. To matched OLE’s concern about an exclusive business model. sustain efforts for years requires a business model that The remaining issue for OLE was to find a host organization is easy to join without extraordinary financial burdens on to enable the collaboration and community ownership of the participants. It is important to encourage and reinforce effort. The OLE Board developed a plan to take action. The deep staff engagement and invest in our own expertise in plan, which we began in the spring of 2016 was to: technology, functionality and leadership. OLE’s experience demonstrates how the web of dependencies resident in l Join with EBSCO and Index Data as founders of the complex networked applications can have dramatic impact FOLIO Project on how a community is governed. OLE not only survived l Leave the Kuali Foundation and form a new not-for- shifts in the environment and in our project, but prospered. I profit – the Open Library Foundation – with broad library attribute this to the Partnership’s commitment to openness services/collaboration mission and inclusiveness. For us, these were not simply platitudes, l Complete Kuali OLE software to provide sufficient but formed the reservoir of strength that allowed us to hold stability and capability for implemented partners together and support our partners who had taken a risk to implement the OLE code, to assess and endorse a pivot to l Implement a hybrid business model that combines cash the FOLIO project, and to empower the many functionalists and effort contributions from Partners and technologists within our partnership to take leadership As OLE enters 2018, we have completed our pivot. Our roles and work together towards a more sustainable future. partnership is strong and growing, adding three new partners in the second half of 2017. We are enthusiastic about our work in FOLIO and looking forward to software “It is important to encourage and reinforce deep staff engagement and invest in our own expertise…”
18 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Governance Case Studies
VuFind: Community History
By Demian Katz and Christopher Halberg generation of the software. This conference highlighted the https://vufind.org/vufind/ importance of real-time conversation to the community The VuFind and development process. To allow conversations started project began at the conference to continue on a regular basis, an online in 2007, when a developers’ call was established by November of 2010. This team at Villanova call quickly superseded the admin mailing list as the forum University began where major decisions were discussed. developing an The pattern established in 2010 has held to this day. Annual open source in-person meetings create the long-term plans that drive discovery tool, the VuFind project. Bi-weekly online calls create an open inspired by the dialogue where developers and users report progress, faceted search discuss problems, share ideas and make decisions. A coding capabilities of North Carolina State University Libraries’ philosophy that welcomes additions that are modular and commercial Endeca system. The largely unsatisfactory state configurable also contributes to the success of this model. of most commercial OPACs at the time inspired substantial The contribution of ideas and code is encouraged when interest, and an informal community of developers quickly the core team focuses on improving all viable contributions formed around the project. rather than choosing which to include or exclude. Despite a strong start, the project faced a crisis shortly after This inclusive, contribution-driven model is not without issuing its first release candidate late in 2008: the project’s costs. While it does offload most of the steering away lead developer, Andrew Nagy, left Villanova for another from the core team, it also brings a heavy code-review position and could not maintain the full-time effort of his load. This can create a bottleneck when contributions are former leadership role. While this scenario can kill a project, particularly complex. Additionally, the success of the project in this case, Villanova was able to hire another developer is dependent on the limited number of developers capable to continue Nagy’s work. Demian Katz took over the lead of performing critical review and integration work. role in July of 2009, and, with the support of Nagy and the existing community, was able reinstate a reasonably regular VuFind has been very fortunate to have the support of release cycle before the year ended, reaching a stable Villanova University funding core developers throughout release 1.0 by July 2010. its development. While there are no signs of this support waning, it would be irresponsible to count on it forever. Despite receiving the community’s trust and support, Katz One of the clearest future steps is to secure VuFind in wanted to create a formal mechanism for community an institutional home separate from its sole source of decision-making. After discussion on the project’s mailing financial support. This may require some new ideas lists, the community decided to create an administrative about governance and the development of succession- decision-making group. Volunteers filled out a “skills survey” planning contingencies. showing how they could contribute to the project, and an election was held to select administrators. By September The success of VuFind to date is not an indication that 2009, a dedicated VuFind-admins mailing list was created formal governance is unnecessary; it is certainly conceivable to facilitate this group’s decision-making. that a situation could arise where the current informal system would prove to be a liability. Yet, this history does This initial experiment with an administrative group proved demonstrate the difficulty of establishing governance in the largely unsuccessful, simply because there was insufficient absence of a pressing conflict or need. When a community conflict within the project to require a formal voting body. consists primarily of software developers working in a Problems were solved and decisions were made organically collegial environment, the focus tends to be on solving on the technical mailing lists, and the admin list stagnated. problems and meeting goals, and if this is happening A year later, VuFind held an in-person conference organically, it is difficult to impose a formal structure on top at Villanova University to discuss plans for the next of it in the absence of any external pressure to do so.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 19 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase I: Laying the Groundwork
Facet: Technology
Phase I: Laying the Groundwork
Core Goal l Continue to Turn an idea for an application into a viable product that gather data serves the needs of the community. A community needs analysis does not end once Characteristics a program moves from design Programs in Phase I are in the design, pre-release, or to development. Reach out directly to users. Continue early beta-testing phase of software development. These to have conversations with the end users of applications. programs may have no users yet, or a core of committed While it may be too early to ask for input on software early adopters or beta testers. New development may also improvements or new features and functionality, be based on newer or unproven technology, require staff community members can provide valuable feedback training, and may exhibit considerable technical or and engagement by assisting with testing resource challenges. and documentation. Concerns and Roadblocks Programs in the early phases often suffer from the need Early openness with stakeholders and other to be all things to all people – in order to get funding, they often promise the moon to sponsors. This leads programs investors will provide a good foundation. in the early phases to be very susceptible to scope creep. A focus on trying to cram in every last feature may leave l Communicate process and progress critical elements behind, such as testing, documentation, and community building. It can also be difficult to accurately with stakeholders assess the amount of time new development will take in a Museums generally do not let people view exhibits until new environment. they are completely installed. Archivists prefer to process a collection before making it available to researchers. Moving Forward: Objectives Until fairly recently, scholarly data was not made l Understand core community needs available until the journal article was published. Contrary OSS for cultural and scientific heritage is often developed to these approaches, the best OSS development is open in response to a specific institutional or community and transparent. Program staff need to counteract the need. Programs should evolve from working within a tendencies of subject matter experts to play things close single organization to gathering input and feedback to the vest during design and development. By using an from the broader community. This feedback can help open code repository, public bug tracking and regular define community-based functional needs, influence releases, OSS developers can inspire confidence and the architectural approach, and help refine core needs engage stakeholders. This kind of transparency may be that require coordinated development. Programs can somewhat counter to the culture of wanting to present gain community confidence by articulating a broader completely finished work, but early openness with vision; regularly releasing small, solid updates that allow stakeholders and other investors will provide a good funders and stakeholders to visualize the bigger picture; foundation for opening up the program to the wider communicating how feedback influences development; community in future phases. and by focusing on overall quality.
20 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase II: Expanding and Integrating
Facet: Technology
Phase II: Expanding and Integrating
Core Goal l Grow thoughtfully Refine the application: identify and strengthen areas that Once an application are working well, identify gaps that can be filled with new has been released features and functionality, and phase out elements that are and a community of not working. users begins to grow, the program team must learn to balance Characteristics community feedback and interest in exciting new Phase II programs have had more than one public release, features with maintaining stable, up-to-date, and well- developed a formal release process that includes a documented software. Programs that can communicate numbering system or other method for identifying major clearly about architecture and infrastructure can form and maintenance releases, and the application is being a common understanding with the community of the used in production outside of the founding organizations. importance of backend maintenance and support. It Programs are generally adding new features and is also important during this phase to cultivate the functionality to their software packages and exploring community of developers and committers (with commit integrations with related applications. rights) outside of the core organization and stakeholders. Concerns and Roadblocks Outside contributors add not only valuable code to the application, but also new perspectives that keep the Once an application has been developed and released, it program from becoming an echo chamber. can sometimes be difficult to evaluate it with an objective point of view. Making the decision to deprecate or redesign l Consider integration over new development features that took several sprints to design and develop can We have communities and we are a community. There be complicated, especially if the features were championed are many organizations working to develop open source by important project stakeholders. Programs that do not solutions to address cultural and scientific heritage engage with their communities at this phase run the risk of problems, and it may be that one of the problems an developing features the community does not care about, OSS program needs to solve has already been tackled by and can be seen as only serving their own interests. other members of our community. Leveraging existing open source solutions can not only add functionality, but also open up a program to a new set of users, Long-lived OSS programs spend as much developers, and stakeholders. Instead of using scarce effort on the process of producing code as resources to develop new functionality which may or may not be integral to the software’s core purpose, explore they do on producing code itself. if integrations with existing platforms with appropriate functionality can serve this function. It may be possible to increase the sustainability of the core product, Moving Forward: Objectives especially if these ancillary platforms have significant l Engage the community user communities, development communities and strong governance. This leveraging of other communities allows Community involvement in the requirements gathering the program to grow in functionality and potentially and functional specification process is paramount. Sitting serve new audiences without having to necessarily invest down, either physically or virtually, with the people who a large amount of resources. use the application frequently can provide development teams with a clearer view of what is working, what Invest in testing, documentation and training. Long-lived features and functionality are most heavily used, and OSS programs spend as much effort on the process of how the application may be improved or expanded to producing code as they do on producing code itself. better fit user needs. Robust and efficient testing, documentation, and training (both of developers and end users) are critical to scalability and sustainability.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 21 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase III: Preparing for Change
Facet: Technology
Phase III: Preparing for Change
Core Goal how re-architecture or Determine how the core application’s technology stack and retirement will serve functionality will serve the future needs of the community; the community. Are plan ahead for expansion, integration, re-architecture, there things users would or retirement. like to accomplish but can’t with the current architecture? Are Characteristics things fine the way they are but underlying technology is Phase III applications are in production, well-adopted, sunsetting and must be replaced? Is there an opportunity and well-supported. Design and development of the to migrate current users to an OSS application built core technology stack is stable, with few changes to the on newer technology? Users of OSS for cultural and application’s architecture with each release. Programs scientific heritage rely on these applications to care for typically have a stable supply of developers and committers, information held in the public trust, and must be part and a published and predictable release schedule. Program of any decision-making process that would affect their staff in this phase are generally looking to the next ability to create, maintain, and preserve that information. generation of the application. The existing application may be nearing the end of its useful life due to changing market l Plan for evolution circumstances or require a technology overhaul to bring the Once the need for change has been identified, the code up to date with new technology or community needs. community needs to review whether incremental improvements to the OSS application are sufficient or Concerns and Roadblocks whether a complete refactoring and re-architecture Some community members may feel comfortable with is required. If the core requirements that inspired the the current platform, it is stable and has been proven as original development of the application still exist, but a production-ready application for some time. For others, the language, libraries, or hardware platform used to Phase III can feel like a return to the drawing board. New create the application are obsolete, it may make sense to communities and stakeholders or technology obsolescence refactor or re-architect the application. It is sometimes may require re-architecting or retiring elements of an the case, however, that requirements have evolved, application. Program staff must balance the needs of and at the time of refresh, additional functionality or a stakeholders invested in and comfortable with earlier fundamental restructuring is needed. Thinking ahead versions with the need for significant refresh and potential rather than waiting for crises allows program staff to get expansion to new communities. buy-in from the community, secure necessary funds, Moving Forward: Objectives and develop transition and migration plans for existing implementers. l Reassess community needs The demand for software re-architecture or retirement l Document an exit strategy must come from stated community requirements, Sustainability is not synonymous with perpetuity. There balanced with the community’s ability to support and are cases where a program has been successful, but keep up with change. Program staff must ask themselves served its purpose, and should be gracefully retired. Programs that no longer meet the needs of their communities or have been supplanted by alternatives Sustainability is not synonymous may need to develop plans to communicate the end-of- life decision to the community and organize support or with perpetuity. migration services for remaining users.
22 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Resources and Tools
Technology Resources and Tools l Dombrowski, Quinn. “What Ever Happened to Project Software documentation examples: Bamboo?” Literary and Linguistic Computing, Volume 29, l “Avalon Media System Documentation.:” Avalon Media no. 3 (2014): 326–339. System. Accessed 1 February 2018. l Fogel, Karl. Producing Open Source Software: How to http://www.avalonmediasystem.org/documentation. Run a Successful Free Software Project. Beijing: O’Reilly, l “Koha For Developers.” Koha Community. Accessed 2009. http://producingoss.com/. 1 February 2018. https://koha-community.org/get- l Ries, Eric. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs involved/for-developers/. Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful l “Samvera: Developers.” Samvera Community. Accessed Businesses. New York: Currency, 2017. 1 February 2018. https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ l Rosenberg, Scott. Dreaming in Code: Two Dozen samvera/Developers. Programmers, Three Years, 4,732 Bugs, and One Quest for Transcendent Software. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 23 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Technology Case Studies
Guidebook case studies provide first-hand accounts from forum participants about their program’s work toward sustainability. Technology case studies are from the Fedora and LOCKSS programs.
Fedora
By David Wilcox http://fedorarepository.org/ The first public release of Fedora to maintain. The API would also be aligned with modern, (version 1.0) was made available well-adopted web standards, such as the Linked Data in 2003. Through a combination Platform, which would help Fedora move beyond the walls of of grant funding and community the library into the world of the web and linked data. These contributions the software decisions provided great opportunities for the Fedora project matured over time; version 2.0 was and community, but there were also several challenges to released in 2005 and 3.0 in 2008. overcome. But like most software projects, a The biggest challenge of a complete software re-architecture considerable amount of technical is how to support the existing community of users. debt built up over time as a Specifically, many institutions were already using Fedora distributed community continued to build on top of a now- in production, often with client applications that were built aging codebase, and by 2012 it was time to consider a major based on expectations of functionality that would change project re-architecture. This initiative, dubbed Fedora Futures, in Fedora 4. A considerable amount of community energy focused on five key priorities: has been put into supporting migrations, including tooling, l Improved performance, enhanced vertical and horizontal documentation, metadata mapping, and training. However, scalability; migrations are often an institutional resourcing problem l More flexible storage options; as they inevitably take considerable, dedicated effort. l Features to accommodate research data management; Supporting migrations continues to be a high priority for the Fedora community as we try to move everyone forward to l Better capabilities for participating in the world of linked the latest version of the software. open data; and l An improved platform for developers—one that is easier Fedora 4 has now been in production for over three years, to work with and which will attract a larger core of and our focus has shifted toward stability. Ideally, Fedora developers. is a dependable piece of infrastructure that works well and doesn’t change very often. To this end, we are committing to These priorities represented challenges based on the then- current version of Fedora, but “The biggest challenge of a complete software re-architecture the Fedora Futures initiative also provided an opportunity to re- is how to support the existing community of users. ” think the Fedora software based on lessons learned and emerging technologies and standards. Early on, the development team a slower release cycle of only one major release per year, and decided to focus on a robust REST-API built on top of an publishing a formal specification of the Fedora REST-API that existing open source software platform, thereby reducing the will provide additional stability for client applications. amount of custom code the Fedora community would need
24 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Technology Case Studies
LOCKSS
By Nicholas Taylor https://www.lockss.org/ For nearly two decades, the two decades motivated technical evolution in web archiving. Stanford University LOCKSS Though the LOCKSS software confronts similar challenges (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff as the broader web archiving field, its architecture has Safe) Program has supported heretofore incentivized implementing independent solutions. community-based, distributed Recognizing otherwise missed opportunities for alignment digital preservation through its with extant community initiatives and the long-term eponymous software. Changes in sustainability risk posed by a siloed software stack, the larger technical environment we are now modularizing the major functionalities of in the intervening time have lately the LOCKSS software into a set of interoperating web Photo: Ben Chernicoff prompted a major re-architecture services. This will novelly enable existing open source effort, currently underway with substantial funding from software to be leveraged as part of a LOCKSS system, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, with the goal of reducing maintenance costs and simplifying adoption of bidirectional integration of LOCKSS with the broader new technologies. Conversely, it will also allow for the ecosystem. This move will support the sustainability of incorporation of individual LOCKSS software components – the LOCKSS Program by broadening the communities that e.g., the peer-to-peer data integrity and repair mechanism – are sharing costs to maintain functionality upon which the into non-LOCKSS systems, unlocking the potential for more LOCKSS software depends. flexible integration and a broader impact. These objectives underscore that the gains “The gains to sustainability from the re-architecture to sustainability from the re-architecture have as much to do with community strategy as with project have as much to do with community technical insight.” strategy as with technical insight. We have a strong sense of the need to find, align with, and invest in the broadest possible The LOCKSS software was originally developed in the open source software communities focused on our shared nineties, at the inception of web archiving by memory challenges if those challenges are to be addressed both institutions. Like other web archiving applications of this era, effectively and efficiently. We need to further build, engage, e.g., the archival crawler Heritrix and archived web content and learn from open source software communities with a replay engine Wayback Machine, the LOCKSS software stake in the unlocked functionality of the LOCKSS software evolved into a complex, monolithic Java application. to maximize the good that it can provide for digital Significant developments in web technologies in the ensuing preservation broadly.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 25 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase I: Creating Consistency
Facet: Resources
Phase I: Creating Consistency
Core Goal Moving Forward: Create a sustainability plan focused on achieving a Objectives consistent and sustained level of resources. That may be l Undertake business and a mix of reliable, diverse, predictable financial resource financial sustainability streams as well as time/efforts commitments from planning volunteers or consistently allocated staff time from dedicated institutions. Move program resources from early Understanding a program’s market and end users, and enthusiasm and grant funding to the next step. the options for long-term dedicated resources, are critical to long-term financial sustainability. Options for obtaining sustainable resources include but are not OSS programs do not have to go it alone. limited to earned revenue streams, in-kind contributions from multiple organizations, sponsorship or membership programs for active users, and other arrangements for Characteristics shared revenue. Some programs may have resources Phase I programs are typically funded by a single that can assist with these efforts in house or at their organization, grant-funded or volunteer operated, and may founding/sponsoring organization, but others will need not have a long-term plan for ongoing support such as to look outside for assistance. membership or any earned income streams. There is often a l Determine human resources needed to move forward single program owner or champion writing grants, shifting In addition to financial resources, human resources internal resources and obtaining necessary internal support. are needed to develop functional specifications, write Software development staff may be grant-funded and code, and perform community outreach. Within the OSS therefore not permanent members of the team, or may be program’s business plan, enumerate the people and skill temporarily re-assigned from other projects. A small number sets required to support program elements in priority of contributors generally means that a loss of one person order, and be clear about what may be delayed or has an outsized impact. deferred when resources are focused on one aspect of a Concerns and Roadblocks program over another. In a program’s early days, it may be difficult to make the l Explore partnerships and collaborations case to those who control the resources that the program OSS programs do not have to go it alone. Many programs is important. Tensions between what users and programs explore partnerships with similar communities or engage need, such as local vs. community needs, infrastructure, with fiscal sponsors or nonprofits to serve as home iteration, and exploration of potential uses outside of the organizations that provide administrative structure original community, may be different from the solid plans around a program’s activities. funders would like to see. Unrealistic expectations placed on small teams can lead to burnout.
26 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase II: Diversification
Facet: Resources
Phase II: Diversification
Core Goal Diversify income streams and talent pools to mitigate l Work with vendors to reliance on one source of income or program member. support development Characteristics needs Phase II programs have generally moved to distributed In some cases, the community of resourcing – be it membership fees, cost recovery, value- implementers and users for an open source application added services, institutional commitments of in-kind may have sufficient technological resources to provide resourcing, or a mix. They are able to meet day-to-day code contributions and all the necessary implementation expenses, but may still be reliant on a small number of support. In others, however, implementing institutions organizations and revenue streams, and have difficulty just don’t have the human resources and skills in funding out-of-the-norm expenses. On the personnel side, house – a common challenge for cultural and scientific Phase II programs have a strong core team and are usually heritage organizations. In these instances, vendors able to recruit diverse team members, but retention can be providing services and support around the OSS may difficult without long-term funding assurances. be a good source of development resources for the program. Working with vendors involves considerable Concerns and Roadblocks requirements analysis on both sides; in the end, the It can be difficult to recognize when things are not working service provider needs to develop the features in a way and to identify ways to pivot to more successful paths. the implementing institution can use but that is generic Converting users to community members and contributors enough that other organizations can use them too. If can be difficult. Transitioning from user support to done well, these types of arrangements can provide a institutional support is challenging. Expanding into different high level of community engagement while covering countries or regions can bring its own set of issues, from the the costs of continuing to develop the software. Some mundane, such as difficulty with financial transactions, to programs choose to create formal registered service the foundational, such as a lack of understanding of open provider agreements with outside vendors. source contribution models. Moving Forward: Objectives Converting users to community members l Expand community of funders and contributors and contributors can be difficult. Grant funding and contributions from original stakeholders will only take the program so far. In order to grow and sustain, program staff need to seek a more l Cultivate expectations around diverse set of funds and contributors. Programs may community contributions explore diversifying income streams via memberships, Programs should provide structure to support sponsorships, or providing support and services around community contributions, with established expectations their application. New contributors may be identified around contributions. Community efforts should be via bounty models (offering payment or “bounties” encouraged to help with answering technical questions, for specific work), workshops or hackathons at fostering the development of code committers, conferences, student interns and/or the user supporting regular community gatherings, and assisting community’s personal networks. with strategies related to software development and community engagement.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 27 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase III: Stable, but Not Static
Facet: Resources
Phase III: Stable, but Not Static
Core Goal Moving Forward: Focus on resilience – ensuring that the program is aware of Objectives changes in the landscape and has plans to address them. In l Focus on alliances other words, make sure to continue to evolve to meet the and partnerships with community’s needs. leading institutions Characteristics Large, well-funded organizations may be drawn to the Phase III programs generally have diverse staff support and notion that with OSS, they can have a strong voice in income streams covering daily operations, and can focus governance and program direction, while supporting the on long-range strategy and even endowment formation. needs of their often-diverse constituents. Partnerships Money is available for R&D and infrastructure programs, and with leading organizations can provide steady sources the loss of or change to one income stream does not spell of income, in-kind contributions such as development disaster. On the human side, Phase III programs have paid resources, and intangible benefits associated with the staff and a strong contributor model with many skill sets organization’s reputation such as shared ownership and roles represented. and responsiveness. Concerns and Roadblocks l Shift business model in response to external events Large contributions by implementing institutions may be Programs need to evaluate their resource plans in mirrored by expectations around how program priorities response to the broader technology landscape and are set. Grant funding that allows for more exploratory or trends in the domain the OSS serves. It is critical to experimental work can be hard to come by. Chasing revenue develop a board or advisory group that has the right can cause a loss of focus, or move priorities away from the skill set for identifying trends and determining how to ultimate needs of the end users of the OSS. mitigate their effect on a program’s viability. Some trends may be positive, such as the current increased focus in higher education on supporting open resources and Make sure to continue to evolve to meet technologies. Other trends may be challenging, such as the community’s needs. cuts to funding agencies. l Calibrate revenue streams to a global economy Open source software can be very attractive to organizations in developing economies. Program staff must be flexible in their expectations for financial and in-kind contributions from these organizations; for example, by calibrating financial requirements for governance participation on a sliding scale.
28 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Resources and Tools
Resources Resources and Tools
l “BountySource Home.” BountySource. Accessed l Fogel, Karl. “Hiring Open Source Developers.” In 1 February 2018. https://www.bountysource.com/. Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. Beijing: O’Reilly, 2009. l Eghbal, Nadia. “A Handy Guide to Financial Support for http://producingoss.com/. Open Source.” GitHub. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand. l “Foundation Center Home.” Foundation Center. Accessed 1 February 2018. http://foundationcenter.org/. l Evans, Duncan. “Three Simple Steps to Make Distributed Teams Work.” Scrum.org. Accessed 1 February 2018. l “Reports and Resources.” Nonprofit Technology Network. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/three-simple- Accessed 1 February 2018. https://www.nten.org/ steps-make-distributed-teams-work. knowledge/reports-and-resources/. l “Financial Management.” National Council l “Planning for Sustainability.” OSS Watch. Accessed of Nonprofits. Accessed 1 February 2018. 1 February 2018. http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources- planningsustainability. categories/financial-management.
Katherine Skinner discussing the “Steps” model created by Educopia.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 29 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Resources Case Studies
Guidebook case studies provide first-hand accounts from forum participants about their program’s work toward sustainability. Resource case studies are from the DuraSpace organization and Specify program.
DuraSpace
By Michele Kimpton and Jonathan Markow http://www.duraspace.org/ http://duraspace.org/sites/duraspace.org/files/2014%20 DuraSpace%20Annual%20Report.pdf 2014 was a year of growth and transition for DuraSpace. DuraSpace’s key goals for the year were to increase community participation and engagement in the open source projects, and to increase transparency regarding DuraSpace’s role and how funds are allocated to projects and services. increase awareness and education about how to best To help achieve these goals, DuraSpace transitioned from contribute to and participate in open source projects, and a sponsorship to a community membership program to to illustrate how global engagement and contribution drives support the open source projects. A key objective of the successful community source software development. new membership program was to increase community DuraSpace also continued to expand its portfolio of hosted engagement by establishing a robust governance structure services running on cloud infrastructure. DuraSpace services for each open source project. By the end of 2014 steering continued to be developed and expanded based on the goal groups and leadership groups had been established for each of providing small to mid-size organizations with services of the projects. Participants in these groups came directly that enabled management, access to and preservation of from the membership. their digital research and scholarship without having to pay Continued growth of membership in DuraSpace was a key for in-house technical expertise to deploy and maintain objective to expanding the organization’s reach and engaging technologies. DuraSpace’s goal was to enable any institution with software users both far and near. Thirty-three percent the capability to access, manage and preserve their digital of the membership came from outside the United States. holdings regardless of the institution’s size. Focused efforts were made to increase engagement with DuraSpace’s success was based on a deep understanding users outside the USA, to better understand their needs, of how to advance community source projects through community engagement, and how to continually adapt services to meet the emerging needs of the “A key objective of the new membership program larger community invested the stewardship of our was to increase community engagement.” collective digital scholarship. In fiscal year 2014, all revenue was derived from and give them a more democratic way to voice their needs membership and services revenue. No revenue in through the governance model established. Significantly 2014 came from grant funding, the first time in DuraSpace’s reduced membership fees were available for institutions history. In 2009, the organization was 100% grant funded from developing countries, as low as $250 per year. The and in 2014, 75% of revenue was derived from membership membership program provided a pathway for DuraSpace to while 25% came from services.
30 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Resources Case Studies
Specify
By James Beach http://www.sustain.specifysoftware.org/ For over 400 years, field collections to use inexpensive or free software for the biologists have explored the processing the data associated with curation and research. world’s wild places to discover Specify’s open source license is valued by most small and and document the diversity of life medium-sized collections because the software is free to on earth. Preserved animal and use. But large university and national museums have told plant specimens from those forays us that open source licensing was a precondition for their provide the physical evidence for adoption of it, because of an institutional commitment to describing new species and for open source software. documenting species distributions in space and in time. Specify In transitioning Specify from grant funding to financial (http://www.specifysoftware.org) museum databases are sustainability, our two biggest challenges are: 1) identifying catalogs of those specimens; they include descriptive, an organization/financial model for generating revenue to taxonomic, geographic and other types of specimen data. sustain the project, and 2) finding a way to keep the project embedded within a research center or university. For the In 1987, the U.S. National Science Foundation began funding first challenge, a non-profit, membership organization model the MUSE Project, the predecessor to Specify. Over the looks like the most promising option as it will enable us to subsequent 30 years the two projects competed for $12M in leverage fees from larger “Founding Member” institutions grants with additional support from the University of Kansas. who are in a position to, in effect, subsidize Specify for In 2017, with encouragement from NSF, we began a process smaller collections with meager financial resources. to identify an organization/revenue model that would engage biological collections institutions to financially For the second challenge, being embedded within a support future costs of the Specify Project’s core software university research campus gives us direct access to development and technical support services. collections researchers for feedback and to inform priorities. More importantly, being under the wing of a “Ultimately, economic sustainability of the Project will depend university or research on the number of research institutions who value open source museum would give us benefits from existing software enough to help underwrite it …” infrastructure, including human resources, financial management, Research institutions with natural history collections payroll services and the like. In addition, staff would enjoy range in size from large national museums with tens of the benefits of university employment which partially millions of specimens, to mid-size university collections compensate for mid-range ‘academic’ salaries. (50,000-several million), to small college and free-standing collections (5,000-50,000). The Specify Software Project Ultimately economic sustainability of the Project will primarily serves mid- and small-sized museums – a total depend on the number of research institutions who value of about 500 collections in the U.S. and 37 other countries. open source software enough to help underwrite it, extreme Generally biological museums are sparingly-resourced; cost effectiveness for smaller institutions, and our ability collections in some large U.S. state universities have budgets, to deliver mature and agile software products that keep up exclusive of salaries, of a few thousand dollars per year. Such with evolving research requirements, community standards limiting financial resources drives the majority of biological and architectures, and commercial computing technologies.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 31 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase I: Getting Beyond Initial Stakeholders
Facet: Community Engagement
Phase I: Getting Beyond Initial Stakeholders l Form an outreach Core Goal committee Identify and involve a wider group of stakeholders. One strategy for regular Characteristics and consistent engagement with the community is to form Phase I programs are generally focused on their primary an outreach committee, thus prioritizing this objective. stakeholders. There is frequently lack of engagement Making a group responsible for it means that community with the broader cultural and scientific heritage and engagement and outreach is no longer a “nice” thing to OSS communities, and lack of an externally focused do when people have time, but rather a commitment for communications strategy, either from limited experience or all stakeholders with long-term impact. a feeling that outreach is not a priority at this point. In this stage, the core stakeholders may still be developing their l Formulate a communications and engagement product strategy and doing a competitive environmental strategy/plan scan. In this early stage, staffing resources are limited and Despite being time consuming, it is critical to create a can be dependent on one organization, with a focus on community engagement strategy at this early stage. doing core set-up work rather than engaging with a larger Programs should consider it part of their overall audience or establishing communications practices to a strategic and operating plans. Be sure to include specific wider community. elements, such as creating mailing lists, conducting Concerns and Roadblocks member forums, giving conference presentations, and Insufficient staffing can be an issue in this stage. Work may committing to regular blog posts. When considering the be done by volunteers and/or overcommitted program OSS program’s communications strategy, read through staff. This leads to a difficult balance between doing the the resources in this Guidebook. Reach out to staff and work and communicating about what is going on to a community members of other OSS programs serving wider community. There may be tension among the core cultural and scientific heritage – the participant list for stakeholders between focusing on critical early set-up the ITAV forum is a great start. functions while at the same time feeling pressure to start l Implement communications and seeding the larger community. The software may not be engagement strategy available to a wider audience and there is frequently a An iterative and ongoing communications and lack of documentation to share – thus making it difficult engagement strategy may be appropriate for many to connect with the larger potential community that the OSS programs. Programs should continue to evaluate software will need in order to grow. and adapt as they go forward. Contributors may find Moving Forward: Objectives that weekly blog posts are too burdensome or regional l Identify and involve a wider group of stakeholders in-person meetings are better than online meetings for the community. Find users who are willing to serve as In order for the open source software to grow, the small program champions and tell stories of successful use group supporting it needs to grow as well. The tight group of the OSS. It is not just about communicating out to of dedicated people working on it should determine and people; it should be the start of the larger community define the audience for the software and start involving engaging with and contributing to the OSS program them in its growth and development. Useful questions and software. to ask and answer as you seek to increase stakeholders include: Who are you serving? What value are you adding? Are there additional Insufficient staffing can be an issue in this stage. communities that can be served by this software?
32 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase II: Establishing Community Engagement Infrastructure
Facet: Community Engagement
Phase II: Establishing Community Engagement Infrastructure
Core Goal Moving Forward: Bringing more into the fold – turning users into stakeholders. Objectives Characteristics l Setting up processes and Phase II is when program participants determine how to infrastructure to facilitate best facilitate engagement that works for the specific engagement community. At this stage, the community may be small Focus on shifting people from “interested” to “engaged” and unsure of how to contribute. For example, individuals and “eager to see” to “eager to participate and contribute.” may be contributing code, but the processes aren’t very Programs in this phase benefit from having policies that clear, streamlined or efficient. People may want to help in a guide and foster engagement including contributor variety of ways, but aren’t sure how, or they may wait until guidelines, community guidelines, and best practices. they are specifically asked to contribute. l Clear communication practices and policies Concerns and Roadblocks In this phase, programs frequently need to create and Frustration or fatigue may be an issue in Phase II. Efforts improve communication policies. Examples may include: take time to pay off and some strategies may need to a code of conduct and onboarding materials. It is a good be shifted. Stale patterns may need to be changed and time to consider if you have branding issues – does the new methods employed. Potential stakeholders may be program have a cohesive overall message? unfamiliar with OSS models and may not understand l Increased non-directed community activities how they differ from the traditional vendor relationship; they may be more accustomed to a “transactional” model Increase active representatives and empower them to be wherein a specific price is paid for a specific service. When ambassadors. Programs should encourage spontaneous, there are membership fees or sponsorship levels, it may be informal, non-directed, autonomous community more difficult to quantify specific benefits and so individuals activities. Participants should be empowered to do or institutions new to open source might need help to presentations at conferences, start regional understand and embrace the model or explain it to their meet-ups, organize a working group, etc., and resource allocators. Efforts may be necessary to educate or act without explicit directions from program staff explain how and why members/participants contribute, and or leadership. A culture of shared ownership and the benefits of being a contributor. responsiveness will also encourage the community to respond to questions. Consider creating “toolkits” or structures to facilitate more effective communication with clear and consistent messaging. Potential stakeholders may be unfamiliar with OSS models and may not understand (Continues on page 34) how they differ from the traditional vendor relationship.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 33 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase II: Establishing Community Engagement Infrastructure
Facet: Community Engagement
Phase II: Establishing Community Engagement Infrastructure (continued)
l Engaging with new l Increased transparency communities Programs will want to ensure that their activities Consider integrations with (ranging from governance to technology) are clear other communities as a way to current and potential community members. The to broaden the reach and appeal of the software and participants need to feel that they understand how engage a broader audience. Examples include repository decisions are made and what development will occur. software integrating with digital preservation software Specific ways to foster this include regularly distributed or collections management software integrating with technology roadmaps, annual reports, and updates from another program to offer a discovery layer. The more governance and committees. interconnected the software is to wider workflows and processes, the stickier it is. The more embedded an OSS l Dedicated staffing program is, the more critical it becomes to the institution, Many OSS programs benefit from dedicated staffing and as such, it will be more likely to have audiences (commonly product manager and/or program manager and institutions stay engaged. Programs at this stage and technical lead) in order to sustain their efforts. want to develop a strong network of relationships and partnerships with other programs, institutions, and l Engaging a more diverse set of engaged participants companies. If the engagement strategy isn’t working, Sustainable programs need diversity in all forms. governance may want to consider changes to marketing Diversity of skill sets (such as training, translation, or membership/contributor models. documentation, programming, etc.) is important. Geographic diversity may also be important to broaden the reach of the program. Programs will also want to ensure they are positioned so that people of all Sustainable programs need diversity in backgrounds feel welcome to participate. all forms.
34 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Phase III: Evolving Community Engagement
Facet: Community Engagement
Phase III: Evolving Community Engagement
Core Goal Moving Forward: Continue to evaluate and evolve the program engagement Objectives model to keep up with new technologies, communities, l Working across and collaborators. communities Characteristics If they haven’t already, programs in this phase should Phase III programs tend to have a well-established consider infrastructure and tools to enable further infrastructure to enable participation. They provide a variety communication to new communities. of opportunities to engage – such as conferences, user l Empower the community supporting each other groups, and awards. They have representation from diverse geographic regions and different skill sets represented Ensure there are mechanisms and processes that enable (technical, documentation, training, etc.). the participants to help each other – supporting blogs, enabling easy-to-update documentation, and hosting Concerns and Roadblocks arenas for lively discussions are important. At this point the program may be considering international l Establish ways to continually evaluate audiences. In order to support that, the program will community engagement need additional resources such as skill at cross-cultural communications and multilingual marketing capability. At At this phase, continuous improvement is important to the same time, the program needs to continue to work with recognize, interpret, and adapt to changing environments. and continue to meet the needs of existing users. Efforts to engage new audiences shouldn’t entail neglecting longtime participants. There may be perceived lack of communication in pockets. At this point the program may be A strong concern in this stage is burn out – the initial and considering international audiences. building enthusiasm may be gone, and the tendency to rely on a few dedicated participants may be wearing them out. It may be time to think in terms of succession planning or new strategies to continue to find fresh people through specific or time-bound projects so they can contribute frequently, but not constantly. Continue to communicate with all stakeholders and users that the software needs to continue to grow. Programs don’t want to be too comfortable and then face massive technical debt.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 35 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Resources and Tools
Community Engagement Resources and Tools l Bacon, Jono. The Art of Community. Sebastopol, CA: Program-based examples: O’Reilly 2009. l “VuFind Community.” VuFind. Accessed 1 February 2018. l Hintjens, Pieter. Social Architecture: Building On-line https://vufind.org/wiki/community. Communities. Self-Published, CreateSpace, 2016. l Kraut, Robert E. and Paul Resnick. Building Successful Consider tools such as: Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. l Group messaging and collaboration, e.g. Slack, IRC Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. l Customer Relationship Management (CRM) – systems to l McCann, Laurenellen. Experimental Modes of Civic manage engagement Engagement in Civic Tech. Chicago, IL: Smart Chicago l Source code repositories, e.g. GitHub Collaborative, 2015. l Public wikis for collaboration and communication l Owens, Trevor. Designing Online Communities: How Designers, Developers, Community Managers, and l Publicly available issue/bug trackers Software Structure Discourse and Knowledge Production l Email lists on the Web. New York: Peter Lang, 2015. l Severance, Charles Russell. Sakai: Building an Open Source Community. Self-Published, CreateSpace, 2015. https://www.dr-chuck.com/sakai-book/.
Program representatives participating in one of the forum activities.
36 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Community Engagement Case Studies
Guidebook case studies provide first-hand accounts from forum participants about their program’s work toward sustainability. Community Engagement case studies are from the ArchivesSpace and Vega programs.
ArchivesSpace
By Christine Di Bella http://archivesspace.org/ As an open source application, The way we meet our users’ engagement expectations ArchivesSpace is free for anyone has evolved over time. Initially our community efforts were to download and use. On the primarily focused on exhibiting and presenting at professional other hand, as we all well know, conferences and working with our appointed and elected developing and maintaining an volunteer groups. In fact, when ArchivesSpace launched open source application is not as a full program in 2013, it had only two permanent staff itself free. In our organizational members, a Program Manager and a Developer. It was model, dues and intellectual anticipated that the Program Manager would be able to contributions from institutional manage any associated community activities in the course of members sustain the application his other duties. and ensure its future. To maintain sufficient membership As the community and its expectations grew, recognizing to sustain the application, we must demonstrate that that the Program Manager could not fulfill all needs in this membership is not only important, but also rewarding for area, in 2015 ArchivesSpace created a position for a part-time those who choose it. While our strategies and tactics for Community Outreach Manager. The Community Outreach accomplishing this have changed over time, we increasingly Manager’s original focus was improved communication with recognize the degree to which community engagement and responsiveness to individual users and groups of users is an important factor in keeping members satisfied and and organizing a few face-to-face events, such as training maintaining their ArchivesSpace membership in the face of sessions and an annual Member Forum. The scope was financial and other institutional pressures. somewhat limited, but for the first time, the ArchivesSpace ArchivesSpace membership has exceeded projections from program had a position that was solely focused on the the beginning, sometimes by as much as double, which application’s users rather than the application itself. Feedback means the community we serve has always been larger than about this change from the user community was very anticipated. The membership program launched in summer positive; many indicated that since part of what they liked 2013 with 54 charter members, which quickly grew to 156 most about being ArchivesSpace members was being part of members by the end of the first full year. Membership has a community, anything that helped them share and share in continued to grow every year, and now, a little over four the experience with others made membership more valuable years in, ArchivesSpace has over 340 General member to them. institutions, as well as 19 Educational Program Members, and As our community continued to grow and diversify, it was three Registered Service Providers. With this kind of success important that our community activities grew and diversified has also come great expectations on the part of those as well. With membership continuing to outpace projections, members. ArchivesSpace is blessed with a vibrant and active providing additional revenue for staffing and activities to community of users. But connecting those users to us and to meet user needs, in 2016, the community position became each other, while keeping the application moving forward, full-time. In 2017 the position was retitled “Community requires continual attention and a good measure of flexibility. Engagement Coordinator,” in recognition of our increasing (Continues on page 38)
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 37 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Community Engagement Case Studies
ArchivesSpace (Continued) focus on not just reaching out to our community members, but also actively “When a community comes together around a engaging them around ArchivesSpace and with each other. Our Community Engagement software application, it is sometimes easy to favor Coordinator now organizes a full complement the latter over the former.” of online and face-to-face events, manages communications and social media, and coordinates a range of user-focused resources, in addition Our efforts have been rewarded with greater and broader to interacting with and supporting individual users around participation in our activities, and especially notably higher the application. As well as proven offerings like our annual levels of contribution and collaboration on activities that both Member Forum, we’re trying out new things, including strengthen the community and feed directly into improving quarterly open calls on Zoom and wrangling contributions the application. for a community-centered blog series. Though our focus has been to engage the entire community in large platform When a community comes together around a software discussions, we are also now looking at opportunities to application, it is sometimes easy to favor the latter over engage more locally through regional forums. Recognizing the former. In our program, we firmly believe that while that different parts of our community have different needs, developing and maintaining a high-quality application we’ve also launched efforts related to cultivating our ensures ArchivesSpace will continue to exist, engagement developer community, including monthly Core Committers of our users, and particularly the members that sustain it, open calls and repositories on Github in which developers can ensures that it will thrive. We’re fortunate at ArchivesSpace share and collaborate on plug-ins or other kinds of code that that our community recognizes this, and actively supports extend or supplement the application. and inspires our efforts in both areas.
38 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Case Studies
Community Engagement Case Studies
Vega
By Cheryl Ball https://vegapublish.com/ Vega is an open-source publishing Although the Vega community was formed around mutual system that provides workflows unhappiness, we expect our community will develop in a and a range of features and more positive direction as we deliver both a technical solution customizations for authors, editors, (the Vega software) and a mechanism for its sustained and publishers to interact with development (a process to gather and address current data and multimedia. Although it and future community needs in digital publishing). While may be too early to discuss Vega we have relied on our community to describe features and as a fully realized case study on requirements, we have not used a community approach to community engagement (its initial Vega’s technical development, preferring to contract with release is forthcoming), Vega’s professional software developers (Bengler) to code our first origins speak to the importance of informal community release. For Vega, this has proved to be the most efficient engagement. Were it not for dozens of watercooler approach: our community’s expertise lies primarily in the conversations regarding the failures of existing publishing publishing domain, and we want to work to our strengths, tools to support, share, and remix content regardless of form, allowing the design developers to work to theirs. We will turn the thought that “there’s got to be a better way” might have to our community soon to test our production release and are remained an individual’s pipe dream rather than a Mellon- pleased that our early adopters present diverse needs, testing funded tool with a long and diverse list of early adopters. Vega’s ability to create new journals and books, convert old publishing venues, and construct new features to advance digital publishing. “Vega’s origins speak to the importance of informal community engagement.”
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 39 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
Concluding Remarks
Sustainability is one of the most challenging elements that OSS programs serving the cultural and scientific heritage community face. This Guidebook is intended to provide guidance for new and continuing programs, and to serve as a bridge to further collaboration.
One of many benefits of the project was the opportunity Participants were eager to harness the energy and spirit to bring together people representing different programs of collaboration in the room. They agreed that in-person and perspectives. Many of the forum participants found meetings provided benefits that virtual communication the opportunity to meet others at different phases in their does not. Some participants already knew each other, but programs extremely valuable. There was consensus that appreciated the opportunity to focus on OSS sustainability there is strength in working together across programs and in a concentrated way without the distractions or conflicting many were eager to follow up with others or assist other priorities of a larger conference or event focused on another programs in their future plans. topic. Avenues for future action could focus around cross program needs and opportunities for in person collaboration. Near the end of the forum, participants discussed the needs and opportunities they see that cross OSS programs, The co-directors, advisory group members, and forum summarized as: participants will continue to explore ways to work together that benefit the larger OSS community. The project website l Program incubation; (https://www.lyrasis.org/technology/Pages/IMLS-OSS.aspx) l Community coordination and partnerships across OSS; will maintain this Guidebook but will also serve as a place for updates on other potential activities that will arise from l Public Service Announcement (PSA) campaign/materials the project. to promote open source as a value; l Networking with other OSS efforts and mentoring others; l Building awareness of open-friendly partners; l Business modeling and planning; and l Planning and guidance around if/when/how programs gracefully exit.
The results of the forum exercise to capture suggestions regarding the needs across the larger OSS landscape.
40 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
A: Sustainability Worksheet
Appendix A: Sustainability Worksheet
For each facet, give your program a score from 1-10 based on your knowledge of the program’s strengths and weaknesses in that area. Scores between 0-3 will align most closely with Phase I, between 4-7 with Phase II, and 8-10 with Phase III.
Facet: Governance “A governance model describes the roles that project participants can take on and the process for decision making within the project. In addition, it describes the ground rules for participation in the project and the processes for communicating and sharing within the project team and community.” 3
Facet: Technology The core of each of these programs is an open source software application serving cultural heritage organizations. There are parallels with proprietary software development processes, but working within the open source world brings its own challenges around community, resources, and governance that affect the software development process.
Facet: Resources In order to launch, grow, and thrive, OSS programs need resources both human and fiscal. Human resources encompass engineers writing code, community members providing use cases, or organizational homes with fiscal stewardship. Financial resources come in and go out in a wide variety of ways – in via contributions, grants, dues, sponsorships, etc., and out via salaries, servers, overhead, etc.
Facet: Community Engagement The Community Engagement facet reflects efforts to facilitate and foster engagement within a community. It is focused on encouraging users to become stakeholders. A component of this facet includes communication and outreach efforts to the community itself as well as the wider world of decision makers, potential users, funding agencies and others.
3 Gardler, Ross and Gabriel Hanganu. “Governance Models.” OSS Watch. http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels (accessed November 30, 2017).
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 41 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
B: Resources
Appendix B: Resources
General l “Boardsource Home.” BoardSource. Accessed 1 February Resources in this section provide an overview of OSS 2018. https://boardsource.org/. program management and development. Some resources l “Community Explorer.” REALISE Project. Accessed are “how-to” or best practices guides, while others provide a 1 February 2018. http://fullmeasure.co.uk/REALISE/. retrospective look at a specific project. l Gardler, Ross and Gabriel Hanganu. “Governance l Dolphin, Ian, Douglas Johnson, Laura Gekeler, and Patrick Models.” OSS Watch. Accessed 1 February 2018. Masson. “7 Things You Should Know about Open-Source http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels. Projects.” Educause. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2017/8/7-things- l Resnick, Pete. “On Consensus and Humming in the IETF.” you-should-know-about-open-source-projects. Internet Engineering Task Force. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282. l Fogel, Karl. Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. Beijing: O’Reilly, OSS organizational homes and incubators: 2009. http://producingoss.com/. l “Apereo Incubation Process.” Apereo. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://www.apereo.org/content/ l “It Takes A Village Home.” LYRASIS. Accessed 1 February apereo-incubation-process. 2018. https://www.lyrasis.org/technology/Pages/IMLS- OSS.aspx. l “DuraSpace What We Do: Projects.” DuraSpace. Accessed 1 February 2018. http://www.duraspace.org/ l Knight Foundation. “Scaling Civic Tech: How Can We whatwedoprojects. Harness Technology to Promote Civic Engagement and More Responsive Government.” Knight Foundation, Rita l “Educopia Institute: Our Work.” Educopia Institute. Allen Foundation. Accessed 1 February 2018. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://educopia.org/ https://knightfoundation.org/features/civictechbiz/. about-us/our-work. l Lenhardt, Jan. “Sustainable Open Source.” Writing by l “LYRASIS Open Source Organizational Homes.” LYRASIS. Jan Lenhardt (blog). Accessed 1 February 2018. http:// Accessed 1 February 2018. https://www.lyrasis.org/ writing.jan.io/2015/11/20/sustainable-open-source.html. technology/Pages/open-source-org-homes.aspx. l Lewis, David. “The 2.5% Commitment.” Accessed l “Software Freedom Conservancy Projects.” Software 1 February 2018. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/ Freedom Conservancy. Accessed 1 February 2018. handle/1805/14063. https://sfconservancy.org/projects/. l Raymond, Eric. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Program-based examples: Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. l “Apache Corporate Governance Overview.” Apache Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly, 2001. Foundation. Accessed 1 February 2018. http://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/. Governance l “ArchivesSpace Governance Board and Councils.” Resources in this section provide a nuts-and-bolts look at ArchivesSpace. Accessed 1 February 2018. http:// developing governance plans, including: developing roles archivesspace.org/governance-board-and-councils/. and responsibilities for board members, program staff (paid or volunteer), and community contributors; and determining l “Fedora Governance Model.” Fedora. Accessed the decision-making process within programs. 1 February 2018. http://fedorarepository.org/governance. l Benkler, Yochai. The Penguin and the Leviathan: How l “MetaArchive Resources.” MetaArchive. Accessed Cooperation Triumphs over Self-Interest. New York: 1 February 2018. https://metaarchive.org/ Crown Business, 2011. documentation-resources/.
42 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
B: Resources
Appendix B: Resources
Technology l “Foundation Center Home.” Foundation Center. Accessed Resources in this section, for the most part, do not attempt 1 February 2018. http://foundationcenter.org/. to explain how to run a successful software development l “Reports and Resources.” Nonprofit Technology Network. project; rather, they focus on how managing an OSS project Accessed 1 February 2018. https://www.nten.org/ is different from other software development projects, and knowledge/reports-and-resources/. how understanding and working with those differences can lead to a stronger overall project. Human Resources l Dombrowski, Quinn. “What Ever Happened to Project Resources in this section provide guidance on hiring Bamboo?” Literary and Linguistic Computing, Volume 29, program staff and managing distributed teams. no. 3 (2014): 326–339. l Evans, Duncan. “Three Simple Steps to Make Distributed l Fogel, Karl. Producing Open Source Software: How to Teams Work.” Scrum.org. Accessed Run a Successful Free Software Project. Beijing: O’Reilly, 1 February 2018. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/ 2009. http://producingoss.com/. three-simple-steps-make-distributed-teams-work. l Ries, Eric. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs l Fogel, Karl. “Hiring Open Source Developers.” In Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Businesses. New York: Currency, 2017. Successful Free Software Project. Beijing: O’Reilly, 2009. l Rosenberg, Scott. Dreaming in Code: Two Dozen http://producingoss.com/. Programmers, Three Years, 4,732 Bugs, and One Quest for l “Planning for Sustainability.” OSS Watch. Accessed Transcendent Software. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008. 1 February 2018. http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/ planningsustainability. Program-based examples: l “Avalon Media System Documentation.” Avalon Community Engagement Media System. Accessed 1 February 2018. http://www.avalonmediasystem.org/documentation. Resources in this section provide guidance on building and sustaining effective open source communities. l “Koha For Developers.” Koha Community. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://koha-community.org/ l Bacon, Jono. The Art of Community. Sebastopol, CA: get-involved/for-developers/. O’Reilly 2009. l “Samvera: Developers.” Samvera Community. Accessed l Hintjens, Pieter. Social Architecture: Building On-line 1 February 2018. https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ Communities. Self-Published, CreateSpace, 2016. samvera/Developers. l Kraut, Robert E. and Paul Resnick. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. Finance Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. Resources in this section provide guidance on where to find l McCann, Laurenellen. Experimental Modes of Civic funding and non-monetary contributions for open source Engagement in Civic Tech. Chicago, IL: Smart Chicago projects. Also included are resources on developing earned Collaborative, 2015. income streams. l Owens, Trevor. Designing Online Communities: How l “BountySource Home.” BountySource. Accessed Designers, Developers, Community Managers, and 1 February 2018. https://www.bountysource.com/. Software Structure Discourse and Knowledge Production l Eghbal, Nadia. “A Handy Guide to Financial Support for on the Web. New York: Peter Lang, 2015. Open Source.” GitHub. Accessed 1 February 2018. l Severance, Charles Russell. Sakai: Building an Open https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand. Source Community. Self-Published, CreateSpace, 2015. l “Financial Management.” National Council of https://www.dr-chuck.com/sakai-book/. Nonprofits. Accessed 1 February 2018. https://www. Program-based examples: councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources-categories/ l “VuFind Community.” VuFind. Accessed 1 February 2018. financial-management. https://vufind.org/wiki/community.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 43 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
C: Forum Participant List
Appendix C: Forum Participant List
Advisory Group Program Representatives Jon Dunn and Presenters Project Director, Avalon Media System Robert Cartolano Assistant Dean for Library Technologies Associate Vice President for Ben Armintor Indiana University Technology and Preservation Blacklight Columbia University Libraries Development Head, Infrastructure Carissa Egan and Applications Hosting Services Brand Manager Tom Cramer Columbia University Libraries LYRASIS Assistant University Librarian & Director, Digital Library Systems Chris Awre James English and Services Steering Group, Samvera Project Manager, Library Simplified Chief Technology Strategist Head of Information Services New York Public Library Stanford University Libraries University of Hull Courteney Ervin Michele Kimpton Cheryl Ball Applications Developer, Library Director of Business Development Co-Principal Investigator, Vega Simplified and Senior Strategist Director, Digital Publishing New York Public Library Digital Public Library of America Collaborative Declan Fleming Katherine Skinner Wayne State University Leadership Group, Fedora Executive Director James Beach Chief Technology Strategist Educopia Institute Specify Software Project Head, Information Technology Ann Whiteside Assistant Director for Informatics Services Chair, CollectionSpace Leadership Biodiversity Institute University of California, San Diego Working Group University of Kansas Libraries Librarian and Asst. Dean for Christopher Hallberg Information Services Sheila Brennan Developer, VuFind Harvard University Graduate School Director, Omeka of Design Director of Strategic Initiatives & Library Technology Development Acting Director of Public Projects, Specialist Roy Rosenzweig Center for History Villanova University Program Team and New Media Research Associate Professor, John Herbert Laurie Gemmill Arp History and Art History Director, Technology Services It Takes a Village Co-Director George Mason University LYRASIS Director, Collections Services and Community Supported Software Chris Cormack Rachel Howard LYRASIS Technical Lead, Koha Team Chair, MetaArchive Steering Catalyst IT Limited Committee Megan Forbes Digital Initiatives Librarian It Takes a Village Co-Director Ian Dolphin University of Louisville Program Manager, CollectionSpace Sakai LYRASIS Executive Director Salwa Ismail Apereo Foundation Chair, DSpace Steering Group Christina Drummond Head, Library Information Technology Forum Facilitator Georgetown University
44 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
C: Forum Participant List
Appendix C: Forum Participant List
Mark Jordan Sam Meister Robin Ruggaber Chair, Islandora Board of Directors Program Manager, MetaArchive Steering Group, Samvera Head of Library Systems Preservation Communities Manager Senior Director of Library Experience Simon Fraser University Educopia Library Chief Technology Officer University of Virginia Demian Katz Robert Miller Lead Developer, VuFind Chief Executive Officer Michael Skalka Director of Library Technology LYRASIS Project Manager, ConservationSpace Villanova University Conservation Administrator David Millman National Gallery of Art Seth Kaufman ArchivesSpace Lead Developer, CollectiveAccess Assistant Dean for Digital Library Kari Smith Whirl-i-Gig Technology Services President, BitCurator Consortium New York University Libraries Digital Archivist and Program Head Dean Krafft for Born-Digital Archives Steve Oberg Chair, OLE Board of Directors Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chief Technology Strategist Chair, CORAL Steering Committee Cornell University Library Group Leader for Resource Tim Spindler Description and Digital Initiatives Chair, Evergreen Oversight Board Debra Hanken Kurtz Wheaton College Executive Director Chief Executive Officer Brian Owen C/W MARS DuraSpace Managing Director, Public Kevin Stranack Knowledge Project Cal Lee Head, Digital Publishing & Associate Principal Investigator, BitCurator Associate Dean of Libraries, Director for Community Engagement Library Technology Services and Learning, Public Knowledge Project UNC-Chapel Hill School of Information and Special Collections and Library Science Simon Fraser University Nicholas Taylor David Lewis Program Manager, LOCKSS Art Pasquinelli Outgoing Chair, DSpace Steering Group Web Archiving Service Manager Partnership Manager, LOCKSS Dean, University Library Stanford University Libraries Stanford University Assistant Vice President, Digital Scholarly Communication Kaitlin Thaney Mervin Richard Endowment Director Indiana University – Principal Investigator, Purdue University Indianapolis ConservationSpace Wikimedia Foundation Laney McGlohon Chief of Conservation Evviva Weinraub Technical Lead, ArchivesSpace National Gallery of Art Project Director, Avalon Media System LYRASIS Michael Roy Associate University Librarian for Digital Strategies Evelyn McLellan Dean of the Library Northwestern University Archivematica Middlebury College President Artefactual Systems
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 45 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
A survey was distributed to all participating programs in advance of the Baltimore forum. The information was submitted by program staff between June – July, 2017, and was used to help plan the forum agenda and Guidebook content. Entries have been very lightly edited for clarity.
Archivematica How many organizations are using If yes, how is it produced and how the OSS? often is it updated? What is the high level purpose of 100+. Produced by Artefactual, updated the OSS? regularly (weekly/monthly). What percentage of users are outside Digital preservation microservices, of the USA? Approximately how many including ingest, identifier assignment, More than 50% developers have contributed to checksum generation, virus scanning, the project to date? format identification, format In what ways do institutions 11-25 validation, metadata extraction, contribute to the project? format normalization, generation of Code contributions; Documentation; Approximately how many code standardized preservation metadata, Domain expertise; Financial committers and committing AIP packaging, fixity checks and contribution; Outreach/advocacy; Peer organizations are actively placement in archival storage. support. contributing? 5-10. Who is your target audience? What is the rough percentage of Archives, libraries, and museums. institutions contributing to the Is there a dominant organization that software? provides committers? How would you categorize your program’s current stage of Less than 25% Artefactual Systems Inc., a private development? company based in New Westminster, Are your communication platforms, Canada. Self-sustaining – project has sufficient software development tools, and resources to continue ongoing documentation openly available to Are any of the committing development, community support, etc. all? organizations for-profit entities? Is your program affiliated with Yes Artefactual Systems. an organization that provides What was the date of the first release How do you cultivate/organize the organizational infrastructure and and/or when did the project start? coding community? support? If yes, please indicate the Analysis started in 2010, first alpha Word of mouth, participation in name of the organization and the release 2010, first production release conferences, provision of contribution type of support it provides. January 2014. guidelines and contributor’s No. agreement on GitHub. What was the date of the latest major What is the license for the software? release? Describe your onboarding strategy AGPL-3.0 March 2017. for new contributors, or include link to info if online. Is there any formal governance of Is integration/compatibility the OSS? https://github.com/artefactual/ with another system essential to archivematica/blob/stable/1.6.x/ No your project’s success or value CONTRIBUTING.md proposition? How are major and minor Does the program have paid staff? If decisions made? Not essential but highly useful. For example, integration with repository so, how many FTE? By the development team in management and access systems is Yes; 8.5 partnership with institutions funding required by many institutions for full development. The development ingest-to-access workflows. What is the current annual budget for team includes archivists, librarians, the project/program? developers and systems administrators. Does the project/program have a $500,001-$1 million technology roadmap? Yes
46 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Archivematica (continued) Are there competing products, either What, if any, is the financial proprietary or open source? arrangement between the project and How is the program currently Yes, there are a few. these service providers? being funded? Revenues are shared between What are your aspirations for Artefactual and the various partners Earned income (through hosting, the OSS? tech support, training and consulting in different ways, depending on the Serve the needs of as many services); bounty model. partner organization. institutions as possible that are How many stakeholders seeking to preserve digital holdings Program wiki contribute financially? sustainably and in compliance with https://wiki.archivematica.org/Main_ 20-40 per year, depending internationally recognized standards. Page on projects. Includes hosting/ What are specific challenges faced by Program website maintenance clients and institutions stakeholders in support of this OSS? https://www.archivematica.org/ that provide development bounties. Main challenge is continuing to fund Program social media How many stakeholders contribute the development of the software in @archivematica developer resources? Among a rapidly revolving field, and being able to meet the digital preservation stakeholders who contribute Program mailing lists developer resources, what is the requirements of numerous diverse organizations. It is important to us to https://groups.google.com/ average contribution? forum/#!forum/archivematica Artefactual provides nearly all continue to work toward preserving developer resources but other as many different types of holdings as Program training possible – datasets, websites, email, organizations also provide code https://www.artefactual.com/services/ multimedia etc. commits, QA review, documentation training/ or other types of support. Some What are specific challenges faced Program code repository institutions (typically university by developers? libraries and archives) provide https://github.com/artefactual/ Participating in multiple streams developer resources during bounty archivematica of development (i.e. multiple development projects. new features funded by various Program meeting opportunities What is the next major milestone for organizations) while maintaining one https://wiki.archivematica.org/ the project? How do you plan to fund public release branch of the software; Community/Camps that effort? merging all features and managing Robust integrations with leading public releases. Is there anything else you want to tell us? open-source tools such as Hydra, What are specific challenges faced by Artefactual has another open-source Islandora, ArchivesSpace and target audience? Dataverse. Numerous institutions project called Access To Memory Understanding digital preservation have expressed interest and some (AtoM), a web-based access and requirements and how they may or integration work has been done discovery system. The development may not be met by the software; already. We need to secure funding history is fairly similar to Archivematica’s using multiple systems to accomplish to provide integrations that meet but we are working with a number of diverse digital curation, preservation the workflow needs of multiple institutions to establish a non-profit and access tasks; scaling up workflows. institutions. foundation to serve as a governance Do you have service providers that body for AtoM. If that is successful What was the source and funding for help you or the community? If so, we may do the same thing with initial development of the software? with what? Archivematica. Seed funding from UNESCO and the Artefactual partners with the City of Vancouver Archives. What would you want to get out of Canadian Council of Archives, the conference? How long did initial development and the Council of Pacific and Prairie I love to meet with other open- testing take before the software was University Libraries and DuraSpace to source groups to talk about common released for community adoption? provide hosting services. challenges. And I’d specifically like to Four years from conception to learn more about other governance production release. and development models.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 47 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
ArchivesSpace If yes, please describe how In what ways do institutions representatives are chosen through contribute to the project? What is the high level purpose of election or other processes. Code contributions; Documentation; the OSS? The ArchivesSpace Governance Board Domain expertise; Financial ArchivesSpace is an archival is comprised of 12 members, 9 with contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ information management system voting privileges and 3 ex officio. advocacy; Peer support. that provides support for core The 9 voting members are: 5 elected, ArchivesSpace members are involved functions in archives administration, representing each of the five levels in all aspects of the program; the including acquisitions, accessioning, of ArchivesSpace membership; 3 annual membership fee provides a appraisal, arrangement, description, representing the three partners (NYU, base level of support, but members preservation, and access. It can be UCSD, UIUC); and the LYRASIS CEO are highly encouraged to make used to manage information about (representing the organizational contributions beyond the annual fee materials in any format, including home). The 3 ex officio represent (and do). analog, digital, and hybrid content. LYRASIS management, the program team and the LYRASIS Board. There What is the rough percentage Who is your target audience? are also two advisory councils, of institutions contributing to Archivists, metadata analysts and the User Advisory Council and the the software? others responsible for managing Technical Advisory Council, featuring 25%-50% archival materials, as well as their users. individuals, mostly from membership institutions, appointed to provide Are your communication platforms, How would you categorize your assistance and direction to the software development tools, and program’s current stage of program team for specific operational documentation openly available development? activities and activities in support of to all? Self-sustaining – project has sufficient the application. Yes resources to continue ongoing development, community support, etc. How are major and minor Please describe restrictions, if any. decisions made? Most of our informational tools, Is your program affiliated with Day-to-day and operational decisions including all tools related to an organization that provides are made by the organizational development and all technical organizational infrastructure and home, informed by the wishes of documentation, are open to anybody. support? If yes, please indicate the the membership. Larger decisions We maintain 4 member-only listservs name of the organization and the of policy, budgeting and resource (one general and three for specific type of support it provides. allocation, and direction are discussed units within our governance structure) Yes; LYRASIS is the organizational and sometimes voted on by the and a member area with the user home for the ArchivesSpace program. Governance Board. The membership, manual and video tutorials. Staff of the program are employees individually and as represented by of LYRASIS and other departments/ the Advisory Councils, has a say in What was the date of the first release employees of LYRASIS provide support prioritization for development. and/or when did the project start? for common functions such as HR, The merger of Archivists’ Toolkit and finance, IT services, and marketing. How many organizations are using Archon was first publicly announced in the OSS? summer 2009. ArchivesSpace 1.0 (our What is the license for the software? Anyone can download and use the first full release of the software) came ECL-2.0 ArchivesSpace application (we need out in September 2013. to keep better statistics on this), Is there any formal governance of but we currently have 328 member What was the date of the latest the OSS? institutions. major release? Yes We are currently about to put out What percentage of users are outside ArchivesSpace 2.1.0. It will be out in If yes to previous question, does of the USA? July 2017. the governance extend beyond the Less than 25% originating institution/entity that Archivematica (continued) created the product? Yes
48 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
ArchivesSpace (continued) Is there a dominant organization that How many stakeholders contribute provides committers? financially? Is integration/compatibility with Our paid development partner We currently have 328 institutional another system essential currently does most of our members and 3 Registered to your project’s success or development, under the direction Service Providers. value proposition? of the organizational home/ How many stakeholders contribute ArchivesSpace can be used on its program team; the organizational home and program team do some developer resources? Among own, but as most archives use a stakeholders who contribute number of systems in their workflow development. On occasion, staff at member institutions provide some developer resources, what is the (including parts of the workflow that average contribution? ArchivesSpace does not address, development, though rarely as part of There are no formal developer such as managing digital files), it is a formal agreement. contributions, though developers strongest when integrated with other Are any of the committing from the organizational home and systems. As much as possible, we use organizations for-profit entities? member institutions do provide design principles and technologies We currently work with a paid some development. Aside from the that support integration, and work development partner. Nearly all organizational home, this represents with other projects/vendors to facilitate ArchivesSpace member institutions a very small percentage of an specific integrations of interest to our are non-profits. FTE (perhaps as little as 0.05) for members when we can. these institutions. How do you cultivate/organize the Does the project/program have a coding community? What is the next major milestone for technology roadmap? We are currently working on building the project? How do you plan to fund Yes up a strong code committer community that effort? If yes, how is it produced and how and recently announced our first There is a great deal of functionality often is it updated? core committers group, featuring six we would like to add to the Currently made available as an Excel individuals including the ArchivesSpace application, including a redesign spreadsheet and updated several Technical Lead. More information will of the staff interface, expanded times a year. We would like to develop be available later this year. integrations, and easy installation/ a better process for this. better support for smaller institutions. Describe your onboarding strategy Most development funds currently go Approximately how many developers for new contributors, or include link to our development partner, but we have contributed to the project to info if online. would like to move beyond this, while to date? We have a Contributors’ Guide, maintaining a rapid development 11-25 currently being reviewed by the Core pace. We may seek grant support or Committers group and circulated within strategic partnerships with higher Approximately how many code the community. More information will resourced member institutions (or committers and committing be available later this year. others) to achieve this goal. organizations are actively contributing? Does the program have paid staff? If What was the source and funding for so, how many FTE? We are currently working on initial development of the software? building up a strong code committer Yes; 3.7 Mellon Foundation and funding from the three partners. community and recently announced What is the current annual budget for our first core committers group, the project/program? How long did initial development and featuring six individuals including the $500,001-$1 million testing take before the software was ArchivesSpace Technical Lead. We released for community adoption? currently work with a development How is the program currently There were about 4 years between partner in a fee for service being funded? the announcement of the effort to relationship, but hope to ramp up The program is currently funded almost other types of contributions. build ArchivesSpace and our first entirely by membership fees and reserve full release. ArchivesSpace built on funds. A small amount of funding two previous open source systems, comes from Registered Service Provider Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon, fees and occasional sponsorships (of which continued to be used in the activities associated with our annual intervening period. Member Forum, for example).
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 49 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
ArchivesSpace (continued) What, if any, is the financial What would you want to get out of arrangement between the project and the conference? Are there competing products, either these service providers? Mainly just to learn from and talk with proprietary or open source? Anyone can provide ArchivesSpace others about how to get and maintain Yes, there are a few. services to users and the community enthusiasm and development once an at large, but we do have a Registered application/community is no longer What are your aspirations for Service Provider (RSP) program new. Would also love to begin forming the OSS? for those that want to support the some strategic partnerships with A robust and stable application that sustainability of the application other projects that serve the archives can be easily used by many different and participate in the membership community specifically. types of institutions, around the community. RSPs pay an annual fee world. We would like the application that can be discounted according to to integrate seamlessly with other the percentage of their users that are Avalon Media System applications used in archives. also ArchivesSpace members. What is the high level purpose of the What are specific challenges faced by Program wiki OSS? stakeholders in support of this OSS? http://wiki.archivesspace.org Provide a complete and scalable Sustained development is our biggest system for managing and providing Program website challenge – we have a lot of enthusiasm access to large collections of digital and participation from our domain http://archivesspace.org audio and video. This includes the ability to easily curate materials, experts (people know what they want Program social media and are willing to put the money and manage workflows, distribute @ArchivesSpace intellectual energy into it). We need to content, and provide online access to collections for purposes of teaching, translate this into development. Program mailing lists learning and research. What are specific challenges faced by Program-hosted listservs are member- developers? only; public archives at http:// Who is your target audience? lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/ It is a complex application, used in a Libraries and archives, primarily in archivesspace_users_group. domain not very well understood by academic and research institutions. people outside archives. The function Program training How would you categorize your it supports tends to be less privileged Training videos are available to program’s current stage of in our most well-resourced member members at http://docs.archivesspace. development? institutions, so getting permission org; we offer training programs for Early Production – initial core of and time to do development on a fee to members and nonmembers, community supporters but in early ArchivesSpace (vs. working on an details at http://archivesspace. stage of adoption/growth cycle. LMS or a digital repository) from org/using-archivesspace/ administrators can be hard. training-and-consultations/. Is your program affiliated with an organization that provides What are specific challenges faced by Program code repository organizational infrastructure target audience? https://github.com/archivesspace/ and support? The target audience is by and large archivesspace Yes; Indiana University and not developers and so translating what Northwestern University (fiscal they want into what developers can or Program news and updates management, IT infrastructure, HR, will do is difficult. Finding the time to Monthly email updates are sent to some communications) do that is often even more so. member and nonmember online lists/ forums; posted on our blog at http:// What is the license for the software? Do you have service providers that archivesspace.org/category/news/ help you or the community? If so, Apache-2.0 monthly-updates/. with what? Is there any formal governance of Development; Hosting; Program meeting opportunities the OSS? Implementation; Maintenance; Annual Member Forum; info about No Migration; Training. 2017’s at https://archivesspace. atlassian.net/wiki/display/ADC/ ArchivesSpace+Member+Forum+2017.
50 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Avalon Media System What was the date of the first release Are any of the committing (continued) and/or when did the project start? organizations for-profit entities? The project started in a planning No. phase in August 2010. The first non- How are major and minor beta software release (Avalon 1.0) was How do you cultivate/organize the decisions made? in April 2013. coding community? Major decisions for the project are By ensuring that Avalon stays up to made by the project co-directors, What was the date of the latest major date with the underlying software with input from other project team release? stack, allowing developers familiar members. Major decisions for the April 2017 – Avalon 6.0.1 released. with development on that platform to product are typically agreed upon by quickly get up to speed in an Avalon- general consensus of the stakeholders, Is integration/compatibility specific development environment. often with input from the product with another system essential The core group of Avalon developers owners. As a team working in an Agile to your project’s success or also contribute back to the community Scrum context, minor decisions are value proposition? by engaging in community sprints and generally made by team members with Yes. Avalon is built on the Samvera working groups. the agreement of the product owners, stack of technologies, and the health of or by the product owners with the the Samvera community is important to Describe your onboarding strategy input of the Scrum team as a whole. the success of Avalon. As a repository for new contributors, or include link system, integration and compatibility to info if online. How many organizations are using with other complementary products is There is no formal process; generally the OSS? also important. Our recent IMLS grant, a development team member will 8. for example, includes integration assist a new contributor in getting with digital preservation solutions a development environment up What percentage of users are outside and workflow and management tools and running for working on Avalon of the USA? among its goals. and assist as needed. For core staff Less than 25% members, there are also internal Does the project/program have a communication channels such In what ways do institutions technology roadmap? contribute to the project? as private mailing lists and Slack Yes Code contributions; Documentation; channels to which new contributors will be added. Domain expertise; Financial If yes, how is it produced and how contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ often is it updated? Does the program have paid staff? If advocacy; Peer support. Produced and edited on an ongoing so, how many FTE? basis; most frequently updated after a What is the rough percentage Yes; 1 major release when goals for the next of institutions contributing to are planned out, and after meeting with What is the current annual budget for the software? the entire development team where the project/program? Less than 25% strategy and features are laid out. $500,001-$1 million Are your communication platforms, Approximately how many developers How is the program currently being software development tools, and have contributed to the project funded? documentation openly available to date? Avalon is currently funded by a Mellon to all? 11-25 Foundation grant (ending in 2018) Yes and a new IMLS grant (to run from Approximately how many code July 2017 – June 2019), along with Please describe restrictions, if any. committers and committing Some internal documentation such as significant in-kind contributions from organizations are actively Indiana University and Northwestern work-in-progress documents, team contributing? meeting notes, and preliminary UX University and smaller financial Currently, 6 committers from contributions from a few outside design is restricted to members of the 2 committing organizations. development team. organizations via specific collaborations (e.g. American Anthropological Is there a dominant organization that Association, Lilly Endowment). provides committers? Indiana University, followed by Northwestern University.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 51 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Avalon Media System What are your aspirations for Do you have service providers that (continued) the OSS? help you or the community? If so, To provide a robust, turnkey with what? repository solution for institutions Development; Hosting. How many stakeholders desiring to host audio and video contribute financially? content; to be able to provide Avalon What, if any, is the financial Both Indiana University as a software-as-a-service hosted arrangement between the project and and Northwestern University offering; to provide components these service providers? contribute significant in-kind and useful for integrating audio and Indiana University has paid Data financial resources. video functionality into other Curation Experts from local funds to assist in development on a time- How many stakeholders contribute Samvera (formerly Hydra) based and-materials basis. Funding will be developer resources? Among repository applications; to provide provided by Northwestern University stakeholders who contribute integration with systems that via the project’s new IMLS grant to developer resources, what is the complement Avalon’s focus on access LYRASIS to support costs for piloting a average contribution? to meet institutional needs such as preservation; and to be leaders hosted service offering of Avalon. Both Northwestern University in implementing community AV and Indiana University contribute Program wiki standards such as IIIF 3.0. developer resources; currently 1.5 FTE https://wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/display/ for NU and 4 FTE for IU. What are specific challenges faced by VarVideo/ stakeholders in support of this OSS? What is the next major milestone for Program website Continued funding and staffing for the project? How do you plan to fund http://www.avalonmediasystem.org/ that effort? the project; tensions between local needs and needs of users beyond Since we are at the beginning of a two Program social media the two key stakeholder institutions; year grant and our current milestones https://twitter.com/AvalonMediaSys developing a sustainable funding and fall within that time period, there governance model. https://www.facebook.com/ are none currently planned that are AvalonMediaSys beyond our current level of support. What are specific challenges faced by http://www.avalonmediasystem.org/ developers? What was the source and funding for blog initial development of the software? Since it is a large system comprised not only of the core Rails application IMLS National Leadership Grants: Program mailing lists but also many dependency $50,000 planning grant (2010-2011) [email protected] applications that provide media and $948K implementation grant encoding, streaming, it can be [email protected] (2011-2014). challenging for new developers to get Program code repository up to speed with the codebase. How long did initial development and https://github.com/ testing take before the software was What are specific challenges faced by avalonmediasystem released for community adoption? target audience? 14 months. Since a full Avalon installation includes Are there competing products, either many components, it can be difficult proprietary or open source? to troubleshoot when problems arise. Yes, there are a few. Installation and support may be difficult for smaller institutions that do not have dedicated staff.
52 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
BitCurator environment, Is your program affiliated with Are your communication platforms, BitCurator Access webtools, an organization that provides software development tools, and organizational infrastructure and documentation openly available BitCurator Access redaction support? If yes, please indicate the to all? tools, and BitCurator NLP name of the organization and the Yes tools type of support it provides. Yes; Educopia Institute. Please describe restrictions, if any. What is the high level purpose of the There are some resources on the BCC What is the license for the software? OSS? site that members have decided to GPL-3.0 restrict to members only (see e.g. The BitCurator Environment is an workflows). There is also a dedicated Ubuntu-derived Linux distribution Is there any formal governance of the help desk only available to member geared towards the needs of these OSS? institutions. Everything else is institutions. It includes a suite of Yes completely open. open source digital forensics and data analysis tools to help collecting If yes to previous question, does What was the date of the first release institutions process born-digital the governance extend beyond the and/or when did the project start? materials. BitCurator Access Webtools originating institution/entity that The first BitCurator project began on is a web service to simplify access created the product? October 1, 2011. The first public release to raw and forensically-packaged Yes of the BitCurator VM (0.1.3) was in disk images, and BitCurator Access July 2012. Redaction Tools is a toolset to If yes, please describe how streamline redaction of targeted representatives are chosen through What was the date of the latest patterns in raw data streams. The election or other processes. major release? BitCurator NLP project is developing See https://bitcuratorconsortium.org/ May 12, 2017. software for collecting institutions to governance extract, analyze, and produce reports Is integration/compatibility on features of interest in text extracted How are major and minor decisions with another system essential to from born-digital materials contained made? your project’s success or value in collections. The software will use Major decisions are made by the proposition? existing natural language processing BCC Executive Council or by full BCC We’ve coordinated closely with the software libraries to identify and membership vote (e.g. elections). developers of Archivematica. This report on those items (such as entities Minor decisions are made within the probably hasn’t been essential to the and topics) likely to be relevant to BCC’s committees. success of the BitCurator environment, ongoing preservation, information but it’s been valuable and will organization, and access activities. How many organizations are using continue to be valuable. the OSS? Who is your target audience? Estimated to be several hundred, Does the project/program have a People working in libraries, archives though we don’t have any way to technology roadmap? or museums, who are responsible measure this precisely. Yes for born-digital materials, especially (though not limited to) those What percentage of users are outside If yes, how is it produced and how held or received on removable of the USA? often is it updated? storage media. 25%-50% This is being maintained by the Software Development Committee How would you categorize your In what ways do institutions – https://bitcuratorconsortium.org/ program’s current stage of contribute to the project? committees/software-development- development? Code contributions; Documentation; committee. Self-sustaining – project has sufficient Domain expertise; Financial resources to continue ongoing contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ Approximately how many developers development, community support, etc. advocacy; Peer support. have contributed to the project to date? What is the rough percentage of 3-10 institutions contributing to the software? Less than 25%
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 53 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
BitCurator environment, How many stakeholders contribute What, if any, is the financial BitCurator Access webtools, developer resources? Among arrangement between the project stakeholders who contribute and these service providers? BitCurator Access redaction developer resources, what is the Educopia pays for web hosting. We tools, and BitCurator NLP average contribution? will be using OSSArcFlow (IMLS grant) tools (continued) Unknown. funds to support further enhancement of the BitCurator environment to What is the next major milestone for Approximately how many better support partner workflows. the project? How do you plan to fund code committers and that effort? Program wiki committing organizations are actively contributing? We need to scale up membership in https://wiki.bitcurator.net/ order to fund dedicated IT personnel. There have been about Program website 4-5 contributors. What was the source and funding for https://bitcuratorconsortium.org/ initial development of the software? Is there a dominant organization that Program social media provides committers? Grant funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. @bitcurator Yes, UNC SILS. How long did initial development and Program mailing lists Are any of the committing testing take before the software was https://groups.google.com/ organizations for-profit entities? released for community adoption? forum/#!forum/bitcurator-users No. Approximately nine months until initial Program training How do you cultivate/organize the public release, but we did not reach Webinars available through the coding community? version 1.0 until about 3 years after the BitCurator Consortium. This is coordinated through the BCC, project began. with most direct coordination being Are there competing products, either Program code repository through GitHub. proprietary or open source? https://github.com/BitCurator Describe your onboarding strategy Yes, there are a few. Program meeting opportunities for new contributors, or include link What are your aspirations for BitCurator Users Forum (annual). See to info if online. the OSS? https://bitcuratorconsortium.org/ Informal at this time, though the A sustainable community around the bitcurator-users-forum-2017, https:// software development committee is software and further incorporation bitcuratorconsortium.org/events/ working on further processes. into production workflows. buf2016. Does the program have paid staff? If What are specific challenges faced by What would you want to get out of so, how many FTE? stakeholders in support of this OSS? the conference? Yes; One half of a dedicated FTE, Institutional buy-in. Opportunities for further collaboration. portions of several other people’s time What are specific challenges faced What is the current annual budget for by developers? Blacklight the project/program? Institutional buy-in. $50,001- $250,000 What is the high level purpose of What are specific challenges faced the OSS? How is the program currently by target audience? To provide a basic discovery interface being funded? Institutional buy-in. for searching an Apache Solr (or Primarily through BCC membership similar NoSQL) index. dues and grants. Do you have service providers that help you or the community? If so, Who is your target audience? How many stakeholders with what? Principally, installers have been contribute financially? Development; Hosting. libraries, archives and museums. About 30.
54 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Blacklight (continued) What was the date of the first release What is the current annual budget for and/or when did the project start? the project/program? How would you categorize 2009. None your program’s current stage What was the date of the latest How is the program currently of development? major release? being funded? Self-sustaining – project has sufficient June 2017. Work in kind, though some supporting resources to continue ongoing institutions fund outreach tables at development, community support, etc. Is integration/compatibility conferences or focused developer with another system essential Is your program affiliated with meetings. To quote the published to your project’s success or an organization that provides statement: “There are no membership value proposition? organizational infrastructure and dues or software licensing costs. All support? If yes, please indicate the Yes: Rails and Solr. of the development, coordination, and commons infrastructure is supported name of the organization and the Does the project/program have a and underwritten by the participating type of support it provides. technology roadmap? institutions.” No. No What is the license for the software? How many stakeholders Approximately how many developers contribute financially? Apache-2.0 have contributed to the project It varies, but it is very few. to date? Is there any formal governance of the OSS? More than 50 How many stakeholders contribute developer resources? Among No Approximately how many stakeholders who contribute code committers and How are major and minor developer resources, what is the committing organizations are decisions made? average contribution? actively contributing? Committer consensus, informally Many, but the average by developer 17 committers in the last year defined (there is no project staff). is very low; a small number of to the main repository from contributors make the vast majority of How many organizations are using 7 organizations. the updates. the OSS? Is there a dominant organization that What is the next major milestone for Based on a survey of public GitHub provides committers? repositories, 107. the project? How do you plan to fund Yes: Stanford University Libraries. that effort? What percentage of users are outside Are any of the committing It is unclear whether any expected of the USA? organizations for-profit entities? work cannot completed under the 25%-50% current model. Yes: Some consultancies In what ways do institutions also contribute. What was the source and funding for contribute to the project? initial development of the software? How do you cultivate/organize the Code contributions; Documentation; coding community? University of Virginia contributing Domain expertise; Outreach/advocacy; the project. Conference presentations, workshops, Peer support. project communications to journals How long did initial development and What is the rough percentage and mailing lists. testing take before the software was of institutions contributing to released for community adoption? Describe your onboarding strategy the software? for new contributors or include link to Approximately 2 years (2007-2009). Less than 25% info if online. Are there competing products, either Are your communication platforms, https://github.com/projectblacklight/ proprietary or open source? software development tools, and blacklight/wiki/Contributing-to- Yes, there are a few. documentation openly available Blacklight to all? Does the program have paid staff? If Yes so, how many FTE? No
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 55 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Blacklight (continued) What are specific challenges faced by What would you want to get out of developers? the conference? What are your aspirations for The lack of formal support or direction Since Blacklight is an extreme of both the OSS? for the project means: popularity and lack of supporting To quote the partners’ published 1. Work must be articulated to related structures among library OSS, I hope statement: “Project Blacklight was projects to see how the problems it faces originally developed as a response to vary from those of more formally 2. Changes are driven by plurality organized projects. sluggish and awkward online public consensus about platform needs, access catalogs (OPACs) in an attempt and/or the evolving needs of to increase usability and findability downstream products for their users. It allows repositories CollectionSpace to tailor and customize their relevance 3. Coupling to platform and backend rankings in catalog search results mean that interface changes often What is the high level purpose of based on their unique collections and mandate backend changes, and vice the OSS? local needs. It allows institutions to versa. CollectionSpace manages day-to-day provide a single discovery solution All of which make backwards collections management activities such for collections that would otherwise compatibility and project as acquisitions, cataloging, loans, media be siloed, e.g., providing a single roadmapping a challenge. handling, and location management. search for physical library collections, digital library holdings, and archival What are specific challenges faced by Who is your target audience? collections.” These continue to be target audience? Museums, historical societies, the goals, though the success of the In my experience, the most frequent biological collections, and other project has made portability and ease questions to the tech list are regarding collections-holding organizations. of installation much more important to installation and set-up difficulties How would you categorize ongoing development. or the use of alternative index data sources (e.g. ElasticSearch). your program’s current stage What are specific challenges faced by of development? stakeholders in support of this OSS? Do you have service providers that Early Production – initial core of The converse of challenges facing help you or the community? If so, community supporters but in early the developers: Especially in product with what? stage of adoption/growth cycle. evaluation, stakeholders tend to have Development; Implementation; Is your program affiliated with less experience with the supporting Maintenance; Training. an organization that provides software stack or control over the organizational infrastructure and platform of installation. Work on the Program wiki support? If yes, please indicate the project is driven by current use at https://github.com/projectblacklight/ name of the organization and the existing stake-holding institutions, so blacklight/wiki type of support it provides. efforts to address installation concerns Program website and documentation currency are Yes; CollectionSpace is supported by difficult to staff. Likewise, coupling http://projectblacklight.org/ LYRASIS, which provides executive leadership, fiscal sponsorship, between the backend and interface Program social media implicates existing stakeholders development (e.g. fundraising), HR, and https://twitter.com/projblacklight in changes driving new feature marketing/communications support. development even when uninterested Program mailing lists What is the license for the software? in the new developments. blacklight-development@ ECL-2.0 googlegroups.com Is there any formal governance of Program code repository the OSS? https://github.com/projectblacklight Yes
If yes to previous question, does the governance extend beyond the originating institution/entity that created the product? Yes
56 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
CollectionSpace (continued) Please describe restrictions, if any. Approximately how many code A very small portion of the committers and committing If yes, please describe how program wiki is restricted to members organizations are actively representatives are chosen through of the leadership working group. contributing? election or other processes. All other tools and platforms are There are currently approximately Representatives are elected annually completely open. ten active code committers and for two-year terms on one of three contributors across four organizations. What was the date of the first release We also have a community of non- working groups: Leadership, Functional, and/or when did the project start? and Technical. Only representatives of technical contributors across a The program began in 2008, core dues-paying member organizations dozen organizations, who provide development in 2009, and the first may stand for election. QA assistance, use cases, functional alpha release was in 2010. The first expertise and peer support. How are major and minor production release was in 2012. decisions made? Is there a dominant organization that What was the date of the latest provides committers? Major decisions are made by the major release? Leadership Working Group, with Most code contributors are based Version 4.5 of the application was recommendations from the Technical at LYRASIS or UC-Berkeley. released in July 2017. and Functional Working Groups as Non-technical contributors are required. Each of the working groups spread across a much wider number Is integration/compatibility of organizations. strives for consensus but, ultimately with another system essential the majority decides in cases of to your project’s success or Are any of the committing disagreement, with each member value proposition? organizations for-profit entities? receiving one vote. In the case of a Yes and no. We have plenty of users Yes, two code committing/ tie, the chair makes the final decision. who have implemented CSpace as a contributing organizations are Within the framework of major standalone application, and its core for-profit service providers. goals, minor decisions are made by functionality does not depend on any program staff or others empowered to integrations. That said, the long-term How do you cultivate/organize the complete tasks. success of the application and a core coding community? How many organizations are using feature is its ability to integrate with Our current coding community the OSS? other application used by museums is spread among implementing and collecting organizations to institutions and service providers who 30+ known, no sign-in required to manage collections and connect support implementing institutions. download so may be higher. with audiences. The technical working group serves What percentage of users are outside to cultivate and encourage new code Does the project/program have a of the USA? contributors and committers, while the technology roadmap? Less than 25% community listserv is used to call for Yes and organize code contributions. In what ways do institutions Non-technical contributors are If yes, how is it produced and how contribute to the project? organized via the community listserv often is it updated? Code contributions; Documentation; and functional working group. The technology roadmap is drafted by Domain expertise; Financial the technical and functional working Describe your onboarding strategy contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ groups based on architecture and for new contributors, or include link advocacy; Peer support. end-user priorities. It is approved by to info if online. What is the rough percentage the leadership working group. The https://wiki.collectionspace. of institutions contributing to roadmap is updated on an annual org/display/collectionspace/ the software? basis, although if things change Process+for+gaining+Commit+Access Less than 25% (e.g. release dates are shifted, new funding is received) it would be Does the program have paid staff? If Are your communication platforms, updated more often. so, how many FTE? software development tools, and Yes; 2.25 documentation openly available Approximately how many developers to all? have contributed to the project What is the current annual budget for to date? the project/program? Yes 11-25 $250,001-$500,000
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 57 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
CollectionSpace (continued) What are specific challenges faced by Program website stakeholders in support of this OSS? http://www.collectionspace.org/ How is the program currently Museums and other collecting Program social media being funded? organizations don’t generally have @collectionspace A combination of grants, earned income software engineers on staff, limiting the amount of code contributors we (primarily consulting), memberships, Program mailing lists and fees for registered service providers. can realistically expect to cultivate from the install base. OSS is still [email protected] not very well understood by the How many stakeholders contribute Program training financially? mainstream museum community, http://www.collectionspace.org/ 18. so selling it as a feature to museum administration can be an uphill battle. calendars/ How many stakeholders contribute Program code repository developer resources? Among What are specific challenges faced https://github.com/collectionspace stakeholders who contribute by developers? developer resources, what is the Currently, working with an outdated and unsupported UI framework. In average contribution? CollectiveAccess 3, average <.25FTE. the longer term, finding adequate development resources to support new What is the next major milestone for features, functionality, and integrations. What is the high level purpose of the the project? How do you plan to fund Balancing the needs of specific OSS? that effort? implementing institutions with the “CollectiveAccess is a museum We are in the midst of a push now that needs of the community as a whole. collections management system is beyond our “base” level of support, with an emphasis on flexibility and What are specific challenges faced by and it is grant funded. Once that push adaptability. While initially targeted at target audience? is complete there is no major milestone cultural heritage organizations, it has Collections management is necessary currently planned that would require taken root across a range of disciplines, but boring – it’s not audience facing, us to move beyond that base. from natural history to research it doesn’t bring in big grant funding, (catalogues raisonné, phylogenetic What was the source and funding for no one is putting their name over the analysis, etc.) and special projects. initial development of the software? door of a collection storage vault. It can be difficult to get administrators to In general, any project seeking to Grant funding from the document, preserve and analyze Mellon Foundation. understand the importance of having modern technology infrastructure in structured data can find a useful tool in CollectiveAccess.” How long did initial development and order to support the goals/mission testing take before the software was of the organization, especially when Who is your target audience? folks are used to muddling along released for community adoption? Initially our target audience were with whatever they’re currently using. 3 years. museum collections managers and Workflows are very tangled up with registrars. The community of interest Are there competing products, either software choices, making migration a has expanded since then, with users proprietary or open source? daunting and scary idea. continuously finding new applications Yes, there are many. Do you have service providers that for CollectiveAccess. At this time our What are your aspirations for help you or the community? If so, primary audiences are: the OSS? with what? • Cultural heritage, including history, To design, develop, and share a Development; Hosting; Implementation; fine art, film and related research. Maintenance; Migration. platform for collections information • Natural history, including fossil and management that: supports traditional What, if any, is the financial biodiversity management. collections management activities; arrangement between the project and enables the integration of emergent • Archives management, especially these service providers? and dynamic new technologies into where archives and digital asset the information ecologies of museums; Service providers pay a small fee to management meet. and is an effective and affordable the project and are listed as registered • Special projects, including alternative to one-off applications service providers on the website. participatory data collection in the developed in-house and Program wiki social sciences. proprietary offerings. https://wiki.collectionspace.org
58 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
CollectiveAccess (continued) Are your communication platforms, Are any of the committing software development tools, and organizations for-profit entities? How would you categorize your documentation openly available There are two for-profit consulting program’s current stage of to all? companies, one in France and development? Yes another in Australia that actively contribute code. Self-sustaining – project has sufficient What was the date of the first release resources to continue ongoing and/or when did the project start? How do you cultivate/organize the development, community support, etc. The project started in 2003. The first coding community? Is your program affiliated with open-source release was in 2007. We encourage code contributions to an organization that provides our GitHub repository, answer coding What was the date of the latest organizational infrastructure and questions in our support forum, major release? support? If yes, please indicate the and follow a strict policy of “only name of the organization and the The last major release was in open-source.” Any development we type of support it provides. May 2017. do, regardless of funding source, is covered by the GPLv3 and available to Yes; Whirl-i-Gig; non-profit and Is integration/compatibility all. Knowing that the entire community commercial hosting, technical with another system essential will benefit from development is an support, consulting and software to your project’s success or incentive for contributors. development. value proposition? What is the license for the software? Integration with other widely used Describe your onboarding strategy systems and services is critical to for new contributors or include link to GPL-3.0 continued uptake of our project. To info if online. Is there any formal governance of that end we integrate with a range of We do not have a formal on boarding the OSS? web services and software/hardware strategy. Contributors are generally No platforms, including the Getty motivated by need. vocabularies, Library of Congress How are major and minor decisions Subject Headings and OCLC Worldcat, Does the program have paid staff? If made? as well as digitization hardware, so, how many FTE? The core development team at barcode readers, etc. Yes; 7 Whirl-i-Gig, in consultation with Does the project/program have a What is the current annual budget for contributing developers and users, technology roadmap? the project/program? make all decisions. Yes $500,001-$1 million How many organizations are using the OSS? If yes, how is it produced and how How is the program currently often is it updated? being funded? It is difficult to say as it’s open source and we don’t track downloads. Current It is a working document and updated We are funded primarily through paid estimate based upon support forum biannually. projects from users and hosting fees. traffic and email requests is ~800. A smaller amount of funding comes Approximately how many developers directly and indirectly through grants What percentage of users are outside have contributed to the project from private and government funders of the USA? to date? in the USA, Canada and European 25%-50% 11-25 Union.
In what ways do institutions Approximately how many How many stakeholders contribute to the project? code committers and contribute financially? committing organizations are Code contributions; Documentation; > 10. actively contributing? Financial contribution; Outreach/ How many stakeholders contribute advocacy; Peer support. Approximately 10. developer resources? Among What is the rough percentage Is there a dominant organization that stakeholders who contribute of institutions contributing to provides committers? developer resources, what is the the software? Whirl-i-Gig, the original developer average contribution? Less than 25% performs the bulk of development. < 5.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 59 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
CollectiveAccess (continued) What are specific challenges faced by ConservationSpace stakeholders in support of this OSS? What is the next major milestone for The challenges faced are familiar to What is the high level purpose of the project? How do you plan to fund any open source project with a varied the OSS? that effort? user base: keeping up with changing A document management system for CollectiveAccess is implementing platforms, supporting users in very conservation professionals. using the PHP programming language different environments and use cases, and MySQL database engine. These and generally keeping everything Who is your target audience? foundational elements were chosen moving forward while also generating Conservators and conservation for their ubiquity and the potential for enough funding to keep the lights on. scientists in museums, libraries, and private practice around the world. easy adoption by small and mid-size What are specific challenges faced organizations. Experience has born by developers? this out, but both PHP and MySQL are How would you categorize Maintaining a large and complex code no longer an ideal platform. To sustain your program’s current stage base, balancing shifting and emerging the project for the next 10 years we of development? standards, and implementing all of the are now looking towards possibly Early Production – initial core of new features users demand. transitioning to a different platform. community supporters but in early stage of adoption/growth cycle. What are specific challenges faced by What was the source and funding for target audience? initial development of the software? Is your program affiliated with Our target audiences are often Funding was cobbled together from an organization that provides underfunded and lack the in-house CollectiveAccess (continued) contract work paid for by a number organizational infrastructure and support required to ensure their of institutions, including the American support? If yes, please indicate the projects thrive. Museum of Natural History, American name of the organization and the type of support it provides. Museum of the Moving Image, Do you have service providers that No. Parrish Art Museum and Coney Island help you or the community? If so, History Project. with what? What is the license for the software? How long did initial development and Development; Hosting; LGPL-3.0 testing take before the software was Implementation; Maintenance; Is there any formal governance of t released for community adoption? Migration; Training. he OSS? From initial development and iteration What, if any, is the financial Yes to first open source release was arrangement between the project and approximately 3.25 years. these service providers? If yes to previous question, does the governance extend beyond the Are there competing products, either We have no connection with service originating institution/entity that proprietary or open source? provider, other than providing encouragement. created the product? Yes, there are a few. Yes Program wiki What are your aspirations for If yes, please describe how the OSS? http://docs.collectiveaccess.org representatives are chosen through CollectiveAccess was born out of Program website election or other processes. frustration with expensive, proprietary http://collectiveaccess.org At the moment, a steering committee collections management software. Our is composed of representative from goal was to provide modern, usable Program social media the partner institutions involved in and free software that any collecting https://twitter.com/collaccess the development. organization could use. Fourteen years in, we have achieved this goal! Program mailing lists How are major and minor Now we are focused on expanding http://support.collectiveaccess.org decisions made? our range to underserved disciplines, By the steering committee. and to exploring the possibilities for Program code repository regional and thematic networks https://github.com/collectiveaccess What percentage of users are outside of collections. of the USA? 25%-50%
60 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
ConservationSpace Are any of the committing What are specific challenges faced by (continued) organizations for-profit entities? stakeholders in support of this OSS? No, but the developer is a To develop a sustainable support for-profit company. program. The conservation community In what ways do institutions is not accustomed to using document contribute to the project? Does the program have paid staff? If management systems and, therefore, Leadership; Outreach/advocacy. so, how many FTE? do not have a history of paying annual Yes; 2 What is the rough percentage usage fees for software. of institutions contributing to What is the current annual budget for What are specific challenges faced the software? the project/program? by developers? 0% $500,001-$1 million The current system is incredible Are your communication platforms, powerful and configurable but requires How is the program currently significant improvements in the UI/UX. software development tools, and being funded? documentation openly available Andrew W. Mellon Foundation plus What are specific challenges faced by to all? significant in-kind contributions (time) target audience? Yes by the partner institutions. Change management from manual What was the date of the first release record keeping processes to How many stakeholders automated systems. and/or when did the project start? contribute financially? CollectiveAccess (continued)Began with meetings organized by None except for in-kind contributions Do you have service providers that the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in by six institutions. help you or the community? If so, 2006. Development began by with what? the partner institutions in 2010. How many stakeholders contribute Development; Hosting; The first release became available in developer resources? Among Implementation; Maintenance; March 2017. stakeholders who contribute Migration; Training . developer resources, what is the What was the date of the latest average contribution? What, if any, is the financial major release? None. arrangement between the project and We are actively updating the these service providers? March 2017 release. What is the next major milestone for Grant funded and the project? How do you plan to fund in-kind contributions. Is integration/compatibility that effort? with another system essential Establish a sustainable program after Program website to your project’s success or the grant cycle ends in 2019. www.conservationspace.org value proposition? It is integrated with multiple What was the source and funding for Program code repository enterprise systems. initial development of the software? Available through the National Gallery Andrew W. Mellon Foundation of Art. Does the project/program have a technology roadmap? How long did initial development and What would you want to get out of Yes testing take before the software was the conference? released for community adoption? A dialogue on sustainability. If yes, how is it produced and how Six years. often is it updated? The partners identify and prioritize all Are there competing products, either future development initiatives. proprietary or open source? Yes, there are a few. Approximately how many developers have contributed to the project What are your aspirations for to date? the OSS? 3-10 That it will be widely accepted by the conservation community for creating, Is there a dominant organization that managing, and sharing documents, provides committers? images, and related information. No.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 61 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
CORAL How many organizations are using Are any of the committing the OSS? organizations for-profit entities? What is the high level purpose of 200-300 estimated. Yes. the OSS? What percentage of users are outside How do you cultivate/organize the An Electronic Resources Management of the USA? coding community? System consisting of interoperable Less than 25% - regular monthly meetings of the modules designed around the Steering Committee as well as the core components of managing In what ways do institutions Web Committee electronic resources. contribute to the project? - regular communications via Code contributions; Documentation; Who is your target audience? dedicated discussion list Domain expertise; Leadership; Libraries and information centers that Outreach/advocacy; Peer support. - informal consultations are charged with or responsible for - publicly accessible website managing e-resources. What is the rough percentage of institutions contributing to the - GitHub repository How would you categorize your software? program’s current stage of Describe your onboarding strategy development? Less than 25% for new contributors or include link to Self-sustaining – project has sufficient Are your communication platforms, info if online. resources to continue ongoing software development tools, and At this point it is very informal and development, community support, etc. documentation openly available network-based (e.g. pairing an to all? experienced developer/institution with Is your program affiliated with Yes the inexperienced one). We plan to an organization that provides strengthen our documentation and organizational infrastructure and What was the date of the first release clarify how people can be onboarded support? If yes, please indicate the and/or when did the project start? as a top priority. name of the organization and the 2010. type of support it provides. Does the program have paid staff? If No. What was the date of the latest so, how many FTE? major release? No What is the license for the software? June 2017. GPL-3.0 What is the current annual budget for Is integration/compatibility the project/program? Is there any formal governance of with another system essential None the OSS? to your project’s success or Yes value proposition? How is the program currently being funded? Yes. If yes to previous question, does It is fully volunteer-based. the governance extend beyond the Does the project/program have a originating institution/entity that technology roadmap? How many stakeholders contribute created the product? developer resources? Among No Yes stakeholders who contribute Approximately how many developers developer resources, what is the If yes, please describe how have contributed to the project average contribution? representatives are chosen through to date? Approximately ten at about .25 FTE election or other processes. 11-25 annually at most. Please refer to http://docs.coral-erm. org/en/latest/overview.html#steering- Approximately how many What is the next major milestone for committee-s-governance. code committers and the project? How do you plan to fund committing organizations are that effort? How are major and minor actively contributing? 2.1 release to add in enhanced batch decisions made? 10. record loading functionality and Please refer to http://docs.coral-erm. other updates. org/en/latest/overview.html#steering- Is there a dominant organization that committee-s-governance. provides committers? No.
62 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
CORAL (continued) What are specific challenges faced by What would you want to get out of target audience? the conference? What was the source and funding for - many commercial products compete - contribute, add the voice of our initial development of the software? and most of those are tightly experiences to the broader OSS Hesburgh Library, University of integrated with other proprietary community Notre Dame. software - obtain ideas for ways to improve our - even with the no cost and low project, specifically with governance, How long did initial development and technology barrier approach community involvement, onboarding, testing take before the software was to constructing CORAL, many and more released for community adoption? institutions do not have even the Two years. most basic technical/IT support to implement it, which means that we DSpace Are there competing products, either need to figure out ways to support a proprietary or open source? cloud-based solution What is the high level purpose of the Yes, there are a few. - diversity of local needs vs. features OSS? What are your aspirations for that will enhance the software for DSpace is an open source repository the OSS? the broadest possible audience software package typically used for Provide no cost, very low technology creating open access repositories Do you have service providers that barrier to full-featured, flexible for scholarly and/or published help you or the community? If so, e-resources management that will digital content. with what? continue to grow in thoughtful, Who is your target audience? community-driven ways to address Hosting. DSpace is the software of choice for user needs. What, if any, is the financial academic, non-profit, and commercial What are specific challenges faced by arrangement between the project and organizations building open digital stakeholders in support of this OSS? these service providers? repositories. It is free and easy to - still working out governance issues One service provider services as install “out of the box” and completely (we are getting better over time) an affiliate member of the Steering customizable to fit the needs of any Committee (BibLibre, an open source organization. - balancing feature complexity vs. services company in France), and overall system flexibility they currently provide some essential How would you categorize your - balancing individual implementer hosting services for the community’s program’s current stage of wants/needs with needs of the website, discussion lists, etc. development? broader community Self-sustaining – project has sufficient Program wiki resources to continue ongoing - navigating commercial vs. non- https://github.com/Coral-erm/Coral/ development, community support, etc. commercial interests wiki - strengthening our onboarding Is your program affiliated with process for new contributors Program website an organization that provides - developing a coherent roadmap for http://coral-erm.org organizational infrastructure and future product development support? If yes, please indicate the Program mailing lists name of the organization and the What are specific challenges faced http://lists.coral-erm.org/pipermail/ type of support it provides. by developers? coral-user/ Yes; Duraspace. DuraSpace is the umbrella organization for the - understanding underlying code Program code repository structure, although this has been DSpace Project. It provides technical https://github.com/Coral-erm/Coral hugely simplified with release 2.0 management, fiscal oversight, of CORAL when we introduced a Program meeting opportunities promotion, membership support, and governance. unified code base E-Resources & Libraries (ER&L) and - abstracting shared code components NASIG, among others. What is the license for the software? - code review to ensure standards and BSD-3-Clause best practices are followed
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 63 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
DSpace (continued) What percentage of users are outside If yes, how is it produced and how of the USA? often is it updated? Is there any formal governance of More than 50% The technology roadmap is continually the OSS? updated by the project technology In what ways do institutions Yes lead. It is available at: https://wiki. contribute to the project? duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/ If yes to previous question, does Development; Hosting; Implementation; RoadMap. the governance extend beyond the Maintenance; Migration; Training. originating institution/entity that Various institutions provide support in Approximately how many developers created the product? all of these categories; however, the have contributed to the project to date? Yes number of institutions that contribute directly to the project is a small More than 50 If yes, please describe how portion of the institutions that have representatives are chosen through installed the software. Approximately how many election or other processes. code committers and What is the rough percentage committing organizations are Project members are represented on of institutions contributing to actively contributing? the DSpace Leadership Group that the software? provides project guidance. It meets We have about 20 Committers quarterly. The DSpace Steering Group Less than 25% currently, but in the most recent release (6.0) had 74 total code The Steering Group is nominated and Are your communication platforms, elected by the Leadership Group. The contributors (average about 50-60 software development tools, and per release at least in recent years). Steering Group, which meets monthly, documentation openly available provides project oversight and ensures to all? Is there a dominant organization that that the priorities of the Leadership Yes provides committers? Group and members are met, by: Besides our RSPs (Resource Service • Providing strategic direction to Please describe restrictions, if any. Providers), the contributions vary the Project All our communication platforms depending on the need from the • Recommending annual budget are on the wiki, especially under the institutions. So no one organization is allocations Support page: https://wiki.duraspace. dominant over another. org/display/DSPACE/Support • Presenting key decisions to the Are any of the committing Leadership Group for discussion What was the date of the first release organizations for-profit entities? and approval and/or when did the project start? We have some for-profit (service • Raising funds and securing other 2002. providers) involved in development, resources on behalf of the Project e.g. Atmire & 4Science. What was the date of the latest • Overseeing project operations major release? How do you cultivate/organize the A detailed description of the DSpace Release 6.0 was issued in coding community? governance structure can be found at: October 2016. We have weekly developer http://www.dspace.org/governance. meetings to keep development Is integration/compatibility moving along. Code contribution How are major and minor with another system essential guidelines on wiki at: https://wiki. decisions made? to your project’s success or duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/ Major decisions are made as described value proposition? Code+Contribution+Guidelines. above. Technical implementation Yes, for its value proposition and for decisions are made by the project increase in adoption. Describe your onboarding strategy technology lead in conjunction with for new contributors or include link to the DSpace committers group. Does the project/program have a info if online. technology roadmap? All information is available online at How many organizations are using Yes https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ the OSS? DSPACE/Development and there are There are over 2,300 DSpace users in biweekly calls for developers. the DSpace registry.
64 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
DSpace (continued) What are your aspirations for What are specific challenges faced by the OSS? developers? Does the program have paid staff? If The DSpace Vision and Mission is: Primary challenges to developers is so, how many FTE? Vision: The DSpace Project will keeping in touch with each other as Yes; .7 produce the world’s choice for it’s very much a worldwide effort and repository software providing the coordinating our efforts (avoiding What is the current annual budget for means for making information openly duplication of effort, and stressing the project/program? available and easy to manage. collaboration / open development, to $50,001- $250,000 allow others to provide feedback and Mission: We will create superior help out). How is the program currently open source software by harnessing being funded? the skills of an active developer What are specific challenges faced by The project is supported by community, the energy and insights target audience? memberships and contributions from of engaged and active users, and the A tool that they can easily adopt and registered service providers. financial support of project members customize with very minimal effort, and registered service providers. which can be a little difficult. How many stakeholders DSpace software will: contribute financially? Do you have service providers that 1. Focus on the Institutional Repository July 1, 2016-June 30, 2017: 55 members. help you or the community? If so, use case. with what? How many stakeholders contribute 2. Be lean, agile, and flexible. Development; Hosting; developer resources? Among 3. Be easy and simple to install and Implementation; Maintenance; stakeholders who contribute operate. Migration; Training. DSpace has developer resources, what is the sixteen registered service providers average contribution? 4. Include a core set of functionality (http://www.dspace.org/service- We ask members of the Leadership that can be extended to or providers) that provide the full range Group to have at least 0.5 FTE integrated with complementary of services. devoted to development efforts from services and tools in the larger their institutions. scholarly ecosystem What, if any, is the financial arrangement between the project and What is the next major milestone for What are specific challenges faced by these service providers? stakeholders in support of this OSS? the project? How do you plan to fund There is a formal registered service that effort? DSpace faces competition in the North provider (RSP) agreement, and a DSpace 7 is the next major effort. American market, particularly from percentage of income that RSPs give We plan to “fund” this essentially the Hyku project. North American back to DSpace. by volunteers and service providers universities have been the major working collaboratively on the project. source of memberships in the past. Program wiki So, there is/will be no centralized Increasing the membership base in https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ funding, but will be a volunteer effort North America has be a challenge. DSPACE/Home like all other DSpace releases. There are significant adoptions of DSpace in Europe and code Program website What was the source and funding for contributions from Europe have been http://www.dspace.org initial development of the software? significant. It has though been difficult Program social media The initial DSpace development was to generate memberships in Europe. done by MIT and Hewlett Packard There is also significant use of DSpace @dspacetweets in South America, Asia, and Africa, Labs with support from the Andrew Program mailing lists W. Mellon Foundation. but language barriers and distance, as well as economic challenges, make https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ How long did initial development and difficult to develop memberships is DSPACE/Mailing+Lists testing take before the software was these areas. There is also a challenge Program training released for community adoption? around how to balance the need to Training is routinely done at the About 2 years. provide special or favored benefits for project members to encourage annual Open Repositories conference. Are there competing products, either membership while at the same time A variety of other training activities proprietary or open source? maintaining the large and vibrant are offered by local user groups and Yes, there are a few. open community. service providers.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 65 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
DSpace (continued) Is your program affiliated with What is the rough percentage of an organization that provides institutions contributing to the Program code repository organizational infrastructure and software? support? If yes, please indicate the https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/ 25%-50% name of the organization and the Program news and updates type of support it provides. Are your communication platforms, software development tools, and Included in the DuraSpace Digest: Yes; Software Freedom Conservancy. documentation openly available http://www.duraspace.org/ What is the license for the software? to all? duraspace-digest CC BY-SA 3.0 Yes Program meeting opportunities Is there any formal governance of What was the date of the first release DSpace has not had a regular the OSS? and/or when did the project start? conference for some years. There will be a North American User’s Yes Evergreen began September 5, 2006. Group Meeting in August 2017 at If yes to previous question, does What was the date of the latest Georgetown University. the governance extend beyond the major release? What would you want to get out of originating institution/entity that March 22, 2017. the conference? created the product? Yes Is integration/compatibility Some discussion of how to engage with another system essential to non-North American participants If yes, please describe how your project’s success or value in supporting projects, and how to representatives are chosen through proposition? generate contributions of both code election or other processes. No. and funding. An oversight board working with Some discussion of the tension the Evergreen Community manages Does the project/program have a between providing special or favored the project. technology roadmap? benefits to project members and Yes the need for projects to be open to How are major and minor everyone to encourage wide adoption decisions made? If yes, how is it produced and how and to develop a large group of Decisions are made by community often is it updated? technical contributors. members who are elected to the There is a wiki page where community members post planned development Oversight Board as well as participants in a development committee and projects. A release manager for the Evergreen documentation interest group. next release maintains and guides Development is added to the master development for the next release. version after being approved by a What is the high level purpose of Approximately how many the OSS? group of core committers who selected by the Evergreen community. developers have contributed to the The software is used for the integrated project to date? library system. How many organizations are using 26-50 the OSS? Who is your target audience? At least 1000 organizations in over Approximately how many Member libraries of our consortium. 2000 locations. code committers and committing organizations are How would you categorize your actively contributing? program’s current stage of What percentage of users are outside development? of the USA? Approximately 15 (there are probably more). Maintenance – in production, Less than 25% supported, potential transition to a In what ways do institutions Is there a dominant organization that new focus/version. contribute to the project? provides committers? Code contributions; Documentation; Equinox Open Library Initiative. Leadership; Outreach/advocacy; Peer support. Are any of the committing organizations for-profit entities? Yes there are a small number.
66 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Evergreen (continued) What is the next major milestone for Do you have service providers that the project? How do you plan to fund help you or the community? If so, How do you cultivate/organize the that effort? with what? coding community? The two areas are to improve search Development; Hosting; The developers encourage individuals and fully complete the web client. Implementation; Maintenance; to install evergreen and begin by This is funded by organizations using Migration; Training. Evergreen. fixing small bugs. These small bugs What, if any, is the financial are labeled as such in the bug tracking What was the source and funding for arrangement between the project and software. There is also an IRC channel initial development of the software? these service providers? where developers can ask questions Georgia Pines Library Service. It varies. Some are paid as consultants and hackaway events to for developers and other sell service and support to gather and organize to address How long did initial development and plans including turnkey solutions that specific problems with the software. testing take before the software was are fully hosted by the vendor. released for community adoption? Describe your onboarding strategy Program wiki for new contributors or include link to 3 years. info if online. https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku. Are there competing products, either php Most of the information is posted proprietary or open source? here https://evergreen-ils.org/ Yes, there are many. Program website involvement/ https://evergreen-ils.org/ What are your aspirations for the Does the program have paid staff? If OSS? Program social media so, how many FTE? Provide a robust integrated library https://www.facebook.com/ No system for consortia and libraries. This EvergreenILS/ system gives control to libraries over What is the current annual budget for Program mailing lists the project/program? their integrated library system. https://evergreen-ils.org/ Up to $50,000 What are specific challenges faced by communicate/mailing-lists/ stakeholders in support of this OSS? How is the program currently Program code repository being funded? The challenge has been to maintain enough developers to contribute and http://git.evergreen-ils.org/ Evergreen users fund development. improve Evergreen. There is an annual conference that has Program meeting opportunities generated a small amount of income What are specific challenges faced by https://evergreen-ils.org/conference/ along with some merchandise that developers? Is there anything else you want to is sold. Some developers work in tell us? organizations where there time is How many stakeholders The Evergreen community is very contribute financially? pulled to provide systems support in addition to doing development. The open which makes it difficult to track At least 15 organizations regularly other challenge can be negotiating who is using it. contribute to development. Most also competing approaches between send staff to the conference. What would you want to get out of developers. the conference? How many stakeholders contribute What are specific challenges faced by Learn how other projects are dealing developer resources? Among target audience? with problems associated with stakeholders who contribute Maintain a software package that can development and strategy for the developer resources, what is the future of the software. average contribution? compete with proprietary systems. At least 15 organizations regularly contribute to development with staff. It is difficult to calculate the developer FTE for the project but there are at least 7 FTEs dedicated to development among Evergreen users.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 67 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Fedora If yes, please describe how Please describe restrictions, if any. representatives are chosen through The committers, governance groups, What is the high level purpose of election or other processes. and code of conduct committee have the OSS? Representatives come from private listservs. Fedora is a robust, modular, open institutions that contribute at approved funding/in-kind effort levels, What was the date of the first release source repository system for the and/or when did the project start? management and dissemination of as well as through elections: http:// The original Fedora paper was digital content. It is especially suited fedorarepository.org/governance. published in 1997, and the first for digital libraries and archives, both How are major and minor software release was in 2003. for access and preservation. It is also decisions made? used to provide specialized access Minor technical decisions are made What was the date of the latest major to very large and complex digital through discussions amongst the release? collections of historic and cultural project committers and the broader Nov. 1, 2016 (4.7.0) . materials as well as scientific data. technical community. Weekly technical calls are open to anyone, as are the Is integration/compatibility Who is your target audience? with another system essential to Primarily academic and cultural public mailing lists, where issues are often discussed. These issues are your project’s success or value heritage organizations, universities, proposition? research institutions, university sometimes raised with the project governance group, as are major issues. Yes; Fedora provides a defined set of libraries, national libraries, and services via a RESTful API framework, government agencies. These are discussed and, if necessary, voted on by members of the project and it also supports message-based How would you categorize your governance group. architectures. Fedora is fundamentally program’s current stage of a middleware platform designed to development? How many organizations are using integrate with other applications the OSS? and services. Islandora and Samvera Early Production – initial core of (previously Hydra) are two well-known community supporters but in early Over 400, though as with most OSS examples. stage of adoption/growth cycle. it is difficult to get an exact number since anyone can download and use Does the project/program have a Is your program affiliated with the software without notifying us. technology roadmap? an organization that provides Yes organizational infrastructure and What percentage of users are outside of the USA? support? If yes, please indicate the If yes, how is it produced and how name of the organization and the 25%-50% often is it updated? type of support it provides. In what ways do institutions The project roadmap is developed Yes; DuraSpace: fiscal, HR, contribute to the project? collaboratively amongst the technical outreach, marketing. Code contributions; Documentation; team and project governance, with the Technical Lead taking a leadership What is the license for the software? Domain expertise; Financial role. It is updated annually. Apache-2.0 contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ advocacy; Peer support. Approximately how many developers Is there any formal governance of have contributed to the project the OSS? What is the rough percentage of institutions contributing to the to date? Yes software? More than 50 If yes to previous question, does 25%-50% Approximately how many code the governance extend beyond the Are your communication platforms, committers and committing originating institution/entity that organizations are actively created the product? software development tools, and documentation openly available contributing? Yes to all? 25 code committers from 20 Yes organizations have committed code to a Fedora release within the last year.
68 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Fedora (continued) How many stakeholders What are specific challenges faced by contribute financially? stakeholders in support of this OSS? Is there a dominant organization that 74 institutions as of 2016. As middleware, Fedora is often provides committers? used as part of a larger framework, How many stakeholders contribute such as Islandora or Samvera. No, committers are distributed across developer resources? Among many organizations. These frameworks require technical stakeholders who contribute resources to support and maintain, or Are any of the committing developer resources, what is the funding to hire service companies to organizations for-profit entities? average contribution? do the work. Additionally, Fedora went No. 20 institutions have contributed through a major version upgrade to developer resources within the Fedora 4 in 2014 which requires a data How do you cultivate/organize the last year. On average institutions migration for existing stakeholders. coding community? contribute 0.05 FTE annually. The Technical Lead works to create What are specific challenges faced What is the next major milestone for an open, collegial coding community by developers? the project? How do you plan to fund based on mentorship, collaboration, Fedora is a Java project and not that effort? and support. The Product Manager all developers have Java expertise. facilitates workshops, user group The next major milestone is to Making changes to components often meetings, and delivers presentations complete the API specification effort requires a broader understanding of encouraging new contributors to join (http://fedora.info/spec) and foster the software stack, which can the community. Taken together, these alternate back-end implementations be daunting. efforts help foster and sustain the beneath the API. This effort won’t What are specific challenges faced by coding community. We also recently require more funding per se, but it target audience? introduced and enforced a code of will require more developer effort conduct in order to maintain an open to achieve these goals. This will be Institutions need to support and welcoming community. accomplished primarily through in- increasingly complex data models, kind contributions from stakeholder and larger file sizes. They also need to Contributions are organized by the institutions, which we solicit by integrate their repository with other Technical Lead and committers group articulating the need and why it will institutional systems, which often through weekly meetings, discussions be beneficial for Fedora users both doesn’t work out of the box. on the mailing list, IRC, JIRA, and now and in the future. GitHub, and through dedicating code Do you have service providers that sprints focused on particular topics. What was the source and funding for help you or the community? If so, initial development of the software? with what? Describe your onboarding strategy A Mellon grant. Development; Hosting; for new contributors or include link to Implementation; Maintenance; info if online. How long did initial development and Migration; Training. In addition to more ad hoc mentorship testing take before the software was and encouragement, we have a released for community adoption? What, if any, is the financial detailed guide for new contributors: 3 years. arrangement between the project and https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/ these service providers? Guide+for+New+Developers. Are there competing products, either DuraSpace offers a Registered Service proprietary or open source? Provider program: http://duraspace. Does the program have paid staff? If Yes, there are a few. org/service_providers so, how many FTE? Yes; 2 What are your aspirations for Program wiki the OSS? https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF What is the current annual budget for We want Fedora to be a key component the project/program? of repository and linked data Program website $500,001-$1 million infrastructure that underlies a wide http://fedorarepository.org variety of systems and services. How is the program currently being Program social media funded? https://twitter.com/fedorarepo Membership and i n-kind contributions.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 69 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Fedora (continued) Is your program affiliated with What is the rough percentage an organization that provides of institutions contributing to Program mailing lists organizational infrastructure and the software? support? If yes, please indicate the https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/ 25%-50% name of the organization and the Mailing+Lists+etc type of support it provides. Are your communication platforms, Program training Yes; Islandora Foundation, providing software development tools, and documentation openly available https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/ organizational home, community to all? Training building, and core staff. Yes Program code repository What is the license for the software? What was the date of the first release https://github.com/fcrepo4 GPL-3.0 and/or when did the project start? Program news and updates Is there any formal governance of 2006. https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/ the OSS? What was the date of the latest Fedora+Newsletter Yes major release? Program meeting opportunities If yes to previous question, does April 2017. https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/ the governance extend beyond the Is integration/compatibility Conferences originating institution/entity that created the product? with another system essential to What would you want to get out of Yes your project’s success or value the conference? proposition? I am eager to hear about the If yes, please describe how Yes, Fedora and Drupal. sustainability practices of other open representatives are chosen through Does the project/program have a source communities to help feed election or other processes. technology roadmap? back into our practices with the Islandora Foundation provides Fedora project. three tiers of membership (Partner, No Collaborator, Member); Board is comprised of one representative from Approximately how many developers have contributed to the project Islandora each Partner; Roadmap Committee is comprised of one representative from o date? More than 50 What is the high level purpose of each Partner and Collaborator). the OSS? How are major and minor Approximately how many General-purpose digital assets decisions made? code committers and management system (DAMS). Via the Islandora Foundation committing organizations are actively contributing? Who is your target audience? Board, Roadmap Committee, and consultation with user community. 140+. GLAMs (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) seeking a DAMS. How many organizations are using Is there a dominant organization that the OSS? provides committers? How would you categorize your No. program’s current stage of More than 150 production installations. development? Are any of the committing Maintenance – in production, What percentage of users are outside organizations for-profit entities? supported, potential transition to a of the USA? Yes. new focus/version. 25%-50% How do you cultivate/organize the In what ways do institutions coding community? contribute to the project? Via biweekly committers calls and Code contributions; Documentation; by using GitHub as a development Domain expertise; Financial platform. contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ advocacy; Peer support.
70 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Islandora (continued) What was the source and funding for Program wiki initial development of the software? https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ Describe your onboarding strategy Internal funding from founding ISLANDORA/Islandora for new contributors or include link to institution (UPEI), and Atlantic Program website info if online. Innovation Fund grant. http://islandora.ca A CONTRIBUTING.MD file is present How long did initial development and in all GitHub repositories (example: testing take before the software was Program social media https://github.com/Islandora/ released for community adoption? https://twitter.com/islandora islandora/blob/7.x/CONTRIBUTING. 1-2 years. md), outlining how to contribute. Program mailing lists Additionally, select official Committers Are there competing products, either http://islandora.ca/community have responsibility to mentor and proprietary or open source? guide new contributors, as outlined Yes, there are a few. Program training here: https://github.com/Islandora/ http://islandora.ca/events islandora/wiki/Islandora-Committers. What are your aspirations for A pull request template is also in the OSS? Program code repository place to guide new code contributors To become a functional, flexible, and http://islandora.ca/github (example; https://github.com/ sustainable platform for managing Program news and updates Islandora/islandora/blob/7.x/.github/ digital assets. PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md) https://islandora.ca/newsletter What are specific challenges faced by Program meeting opportunities Does the program have paid staff? If stakeholders in support of this OSS? http://islandora.ca/search/ so, how many FTE? Continuation of financial support. Yes; 2 site/?f[0]=im_field_type_event%3A29 What are specific challenges faced What would you want to get out of What is the current annual budget for by developers? the conference? the project/program? Working in an open, collaborative To learn about other OSS communities $50,001- $250,000 community while achieving their and their governance, and to discuss organization’s/clients’ goals. How is the program currently opportunities for collaboration. being funded? What are specific challenges faced by Membership. target audience? Installation, maintenance, and Koha How many stakeholders contribute customization of the platform financially? with limited developer and system What is the high level purpose of 38. administrator resources. the OSS? How many stakeholders contribute Runs a library (both physical Do you have service providers that and electronic). developer resources? Among help you or the community? If so, stakeholders who contribute with what? Who is your target audience? developer resources, what is the Development; Hosting; Any organisation that has a library. So average contribution? Implementation; Maintenance; pretty much every organisation over Two official contributions of less than Migration; Training. about 50 people. 0.5 FTE, many unofficial contributions of time, often associated with internal What, if any, is the financial Libraries of all shapes and sizes: projects. arrangement between the project and Public, Academic, Schools, Special, these service providers? Corporate, Government, etc. What is the next major milestone for Some are Islandora Foundation the project? How do you plan to fund How would you categorize partners, collaborators, or members. that effort? your program’s current stage The Islandora Foundation’s of development? Develop the next generation (currently relationship with service providers is called CLAW) to be production ready. Self-sustaining – project has sufficient the same as it is for galleries, libraries, resources to continue ongoing Increase membership and archives, and library members. community participation. development, community support, etc.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 71 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Koha (continued) Are your communication platforms, Is there a dominant organization that software development tools, and provides committers? Is your program affiliated with documentation openly available There is no one dominant an organization that provides to all? organisation, but there are 3 or 4 that organizational infrastructure and Yes provide the bulk of commits (not support? If yes, please indicate the committers). Please describe restrictions, if any. name of the organization and the Are any of the committing type of support it provides. Everything is in the open. organizations for-profit entities? No. What was the date of the first release Yes. and/or when did the project start? What is the license for the software? Code went into production How do you cultivate/organize the GPL-3.0 January 3 2000, first release of the coding community? Is there any formal governance of software for download/contributions Mailing lists, wiki and development the OSS? was June 2000. meetings on irc. We communicate and Yes document everything in the open and What was the date of the latest keep the bar as low as possible for If yes to previous question, does major release? new committers. the governance extend beyond the May 27, 2017. originating institution/entity that Describe your onboarding strategy Is integration/compatibility created the product? for new contributors or include link to with another system essential info if online. Yes to your project’s success or https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/ If yes, please describe how value proposition? Getting_involved representatives are chosen through Library systems need to integrate election or other processes. with a vast array of 3rd party systems, Does the program have paid staff? If so, how many FTE? There is more of a management no one is critical but combined they structure than a pure governance one, would be. Yes; 1 release teams are elected by the wider Does the project/program have a What is the current annual budget for community for each release. technology roadmap? the project/program? How are major and minor Yes $50,001- $250,000 decisions made? If yes, how is it produced and how How is the program currently Voting and consensus making. Major often is it updated? being funded? decisions are voted on, minor ones we It is updated in monthly Sponsorship. work to reach a consensus. developer meetings. How many stakeholders How many organizations are using Approximately how many developers contribute financially? the OSS? have contributed to the project This depends entirely on what you Approximately 15,000. to date? mean by a financial contribution, if What percentage of users are outside More than 50 you mean purely giving money, then of the USA? 4 regularly, more for conferences. Approximately how many code More than 50% committers and committing How many stakeholders contribute developer resources? Among In what ways do institutions organizations are actively contributing? stakeholders who contribute contribute to the project? developer resources, what is the 51 individuals from about 22 Code contributions; Documentation; average contribution? Domain expertise; Financial organisations have had code accepted 20 organisations, the average would contribution; Outreach/advocacy; Peer into Koha to date in 2017 be .2 FTE ... but some of those orgs support. There were 91 in 2016 and 92 in 2015. have 2 or 3 FTE dedicated. What is the rough percentage of institutions contributing to the software? Less than 25%
72 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Koha (continued) What are specific challenges faced Program code repository by developers? http://git.koha-community.org/ What is the next major milestone for As always, interfacing with poorly gitweb/ the project? How do you plan to fund document proprietary systems is the Program news and updates that effort? hardest part. https://koha-community.org/category/ Further integration with ERMS For example, I spend way too much koha-newsletter/ systems. As with pretty much every time having to explain to 3rd party feature in Koha, this will come from vendors that no, they can’t send Koha Program meeting opportunities users spec’ing and paying for it to be passwords in the clear. There are so https://koha-community.org/ developed. We run as a bottom up, many systems that a library system kohacon/ not top down project. needs to interact with, authentication systems, financial systems, ERMS, DRM What would you want to get out of What was the source and funding for vendors (overdrive, wheelers, oneclick the conference? initial development of the software? digital etc), student management It is always good to talk to others Katipo communications was systems. Building and maintaining about how they are working, and contracted to write it by the those integration points are always share ideas and learn from each other. Te Horowhenua Library trust. It was the most challenging. Standards work for hire. sometimes exist, but it is very rare that they are ever followed. How long did initial development and Library Simplified/SimplyE testing take before the software was What are specific challenges faced by released for community adoption? target audience? What is the high level purpose of the OSS? Initial development took 3 months, Funding, libraries are facing funding code was in production after cuts the world over. So they are Simplify the borrowing of eBooks 3 months. Wider release took a further under continuous pressure to offer the from various library ebook content 6 months. same (or higher) level of service at providers in a single unified lower cost. application. The app provides a unified Are there competing products, either catalog of content, a transactionally proprietary or open source? Do you have service providers that simple, anonymous, secure collection Yes, there are many. help you or the community? If so, borrowing experience, and an with what? advanced reading environment that is
What are your aspirations for Development; Implementation; compatible with native screen readers the OSS? Maintenance; Migration; Training. and assistive technologies. To continue to grow, and become the choice for all freedom What, if any, is the financial Who is your target audience? respecting organisations. arrangement between the project and Readers. these service providers? How would you categorize your What are specific challenges faced by There aren’t any formal arrangements. stakeholders in support of this OSS? program’s current stage of Libraries themselves are in a Program wiki development? continuous state of flux, and the https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/ Early Production – initial core of proprietary vendors are not above Main_Page community supporters but in early blatantly lying about the abilities of stage of adoption/growth cycle. their software and/or the ‘flaws’ of Program website OSS. Basically unscrupulous vendors https://koha-community.org/ Is your program affiliated with and naive libraries are the biggest an organization that provides challenges we face. Program mailing lists organizational infrastructure and https://koha-community.org/support/ support? If yes, please indicate the koha-mailing-lists/ name of the organization and the type of support it provides. Program training Yes. https://koha-community.org/ documentation/ What is the license for the software? Apache-2.0
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 73 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Library Simplified/SimplyE What was the date of the first release How do you cultivate/organize the (continued) and/or when did the project start? coding community? Feb 2016 was the first release of the We work through the Readium Software under the Open Ebooks Foundation and the Library Community. Is there any formal governance of initiative for the White House’s the OSS? Connect Ed program. The second was Describe your onboarding strategy Yes for NYPL’s own instance. for new contributors or include link to info if online. If yes to previous question, does What was the date of the latest We invite folks to participate in our the governance extend beyond the major release? weekly sprints and to participate on originating institution/entity that Version 2.0 was released in our IRC / Slack channel. That way, created the product? March 2017. folks can learn about the code base No and ask questions, seek guidance Is integration/compatibility from developers. How are major and minor with another system essential decisions made? to your project’s success or Does the program have paid staff? If Previously it was cultivated by the value proposition? so, how many FTE? product owner and engineering team Yes. It must be compatible with mobile Yes who acted as community managers. platforms, DRM providers and content However, its current institutional host providers such as Bibliotheca, What is the current annual budget for support is in question due to new Overdrive and Baker and Taylor the project/program? leadership and leadership priorities. Access 360. $250,001-$500,000
How many organizations are using Does the project/program have a How is the program currently the OSS? technology roadmap? being funded? 5. Yes It is primarily being funded through grants but some staff have What percentage of users are outside If yes, how is it produced and how transitioned to full time staff that may of the USA? often is it updated? be reallocated if the project loses Less than 25% It is produced in collaboration support for operating as part of an In what ways do institutions with the community of interested open source project. contribute to the project? libraries and the product owner, community contributors. How many stakeholders Code contributions; Financial contribute financially? contribution; Outreach/advocacy; Peer Approximately how many developers 4 – The Institute of Museum and support. have contributed to the project Library Services, The New York Public to date? What is the rough percentage Library, Minitex, and the State Library of institutions contributing to 11-25 of Connecticut. the software? Approximately how many code How many stakeholders contribute 25%-50% committers and committing developer resources? Among organizations are actively Are your communication platforms, stakeholders who contribute contributing? software development tools, and developer resources, what is the documentation openly available 5 Organizations, 12 Individuals. average contribution? 2 FTE from Minitex, 7 FTE from NYPL to all? Is there a dominant organization that Yes and various levels as need for specific provides committers? project from the broader community. Please describe restrictions, if any. The New York Public Library. What is the next major milestone for The application must use DRM Are any of the committing the project? How do you plan to fund software that makes it compatible organizations for-profit entities? that effort? with third party content providers. Sony DADC is contributing The next major milestone will be That DRM is under commercial integration of their DRM. Datalogics license. audiobook integration, DRM and in contributing integration with ebook Rendering engine (ebook rendering content hosts. Odillo has committed to technology). This is currently also contributing an integration into its supported by institutional donors. content services.
74 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Library Simplified/SimplyE Program social media How would you categorize (continued) [email protected] your program’s current stage of development? Program code repository Maintenance – in production, What was the source and funding for https://github.com/NYPL-Simplified supported, potential transition to a initial development of the software? new focus/version. The Institute of Museum and Program meeting opportunities Library Services. ALA, Code4 Lib, PLA, DPLAFest, Is your program affiliated with Write/Speak/Code, RestFest. an organization that provides How long did initial development and organizational infrastructure and testing take before the software was Is there anything else you want to support? If yes, please indicate the released for community adoption? tell us? name of the organization and the 18 Months. We are looking for foundational and type of support it provides. commercial financial sponsors. We Yes; The LOCKSS Program is an Are there competing products, either hope to create a world in which user proprietary or open source? Auxiliary Unit of Stanford Libraries. once again thinks of libraries first As such, it is administratively part of Yes, there are many. when looking to find a good book Stanford University but supports itself to read. We hope to help libraries What are your aspirations for wholly through external funding. We establish themselves in the Digital the OSS? recently moved into the Digital Library Era and as an equal partner in To improve access to Library eBooks Systems and Services group, which is promoting a love of books in the providing opportunities for potential and industry adoption of accessible, Publishing Industry. interoperable and open technologies. cost efficiencies. What would you want to get out of What is the license for the software? What are specific challenges faced by the conference? stakeholders in support of this OSS? BSD-3-Clause New participation and interest by Institutional priorities for resources for other institutions and developers who Is there any formal governance of internal projects. feel the project could be of value to the OSS? What are specific challenges faced them and their motivations. No by developers? How many organizations are using Dealing with incumbent technologies the OSS? and supporting maintenance of We don’t have precise numbers, in existing applications. Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (LOCKSS) part because the software is open What are specific challenges faced by source and available to anyone for target audience? free. A plausible estimate for the What is the high level purpose of the The current challenges for the target number of organizations running OSS? audience is the complexity of the the LOCKSS software would be a The LOCKSS software provides current commercial solutions and lack few hundred. decentralized, peer-reviewed, peer-to- of features with this projects current peer, resilient digital preservation for What percentage of users are outside offering. all types of content. of the USA? Do you have service providers that Less than 25% Who is your target audience? help you or the community? If so, In what ways do institutions with what? Our partners are communities who have a shared interest in the contribute to the project? Development; Implementation. preservation of particular content. Code contributions; Documentation; What, if any, is the financial Principally, though not exclusively, Domain expertise; Financial arrangement between the project and these are communities of memory contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ these service providers? organizations. We are interested in advocacy; Peer support. None. expanding our partnerships among existing and to new audiences to What is the rough percentage Program website broadly facilitate better digital of institutions contributing to the software? www.librarysimplified.org preservation for more content. Less than 25%
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 75 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe If yes, how is it produced and how Describe your onboarding strategy (LOCKSS) (continued) often is it updated? for new contributors or include link to Our current technology roadmap is info if online. closely coupled with deliverables for We are not yet far enough along to Are your communication platforms, a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon have a well-established onboarding software development tools, and Foundation. To date, major projected strategy but believe this is a documentation openly available milestones and work areas have worthwhile goal. to all? been shared informally via public Yes presentations. We are working on Does the program have paid staff? If so, how many FTE? Please describe restrictions, if any. channels to share the roadmap and the state of ongoing work on a more Yes; 13 Our code and some documentation regular and persistent basis. are currently open to all. We are What is the current annual budget for working on making other aspects Approximately how many developers the project/program? of our software development more have contributed to the project More than $1 million externally transparent and accessible. to date? How is the program currently 26-50 What was the date of the first release being funded? and/or when did the project start? Approximately how many The LOCKSS Program is funded by The LOCKSS Program started in 1999, code committers and charging for services and support and the first production release of committing organizations are (i.e., the Red Hat business model: the LOCKSS software came in 2004. actively contributing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ More details about the history of At least four organizations cumulatively Red_Hat#Business_model) as well as the LOCKSS Program can be found with half a dozen developers are occasional grants. here: https://www.lockss.org/about/ either contributing code to the How many stakeholders c history/. LOCKSS software or maintain software ontribute financially? What was the date of the latest specifically designed to interoperate with the LOCKSS software. Several hundred organizations major release? fund the LOCKSS Program through The latest release of the LOCKSS Is there a dominant organization that payments for services and support. software was in June 2017. The next provides committers? How many stakeholders contribute anticipated release will be July 2017. It is difficult to compare the weight developer resources? Among of the organizations’ relative Is integration/compatibility stakeholders who contribute contributions. with another system essential developer resources, what is the to your project’s success or Are any of the committing average contribution? value proposition? organizations for-profit entities? At least four stakeholders contribute Yes, increasingly so. We are in the No. code or conduct independent midst of a major software re- development on software that architecture that will result in the How do you cultivate/organize the interoperates with the LOCKSS major components of the LOCKSS coding community? software, but it is difficult for us to software becoming available for We are actively investing in a stronger estimate the level of effort. integration into other platforms as community orientation for LOCKSS standalone web services. We hope software development. We are starting What is the next major milestone for that they may find application in by making our current activities more the project? How do you plan to fund other digital preservation or web transparent: publicly sharing our that effort? archiving systems. In addition, we are roadmap, planned work cycles, and We have major software development working to simplify the hand-off of development progress on an ongoing milestones for the LOCKSS software data between repository systems and basis. We hope to build on these planned on six-month intervals LOCKSS networks. efforts by better documenting our (June, December) from now through code repositories, creating a developer June 2018. This work is generously Does the project/program have a portal, and engaging more directly supported by a grant from the Andrew technology roadmap? with proximate technical communities. W. Mellon Foundation. Yes
76 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe What are specific challenges faced MetaArchive LOCKSS (LOCKSS) (continued) by developers? Apart from the documentation gap, What is the high level purpose of we have not yet provided guidance on What was the source and funding for the OSS? how developers could most effectively initial development of the software? MetaArchive uses the free open source plug into or build upon our work. The initial software development and LOCKSS archiving software to operate research effort was supported by What are specific challenges faced by a network of preservation servers. funding from the National Science target audience? Due to the low cost participation it is affordable for libraries of all sizes. Foundation and Sun Microsystems. It is difficult to generalize since the LOCKSS is an ACM award winning contexts in and use cases for which How long did initial development and digital preservation technology which the LOCKSS software is used vary. testing take before the software was preserves all formats and genres of Changes in the local IT environments released for community adoption? web-published content from full- of a subset of our partners is making fledged web sites to simple web Initial development and testing it increasingly challenging to hosted directories. took approximately five years before effectively operate and manage their the first production release was LOCKSS systems. Content is stored in and restored made available. to its original format. Participating Program wiki institutions identify valuable digital Are there competing products, either https://plnwiki.lockss.org/ assets that they wish to preserve proprietary or open source? safely. They make the corresponding Yes, there are a few. Program website digital content accessible to https://www.lockss.org/ What are your aspirations for MetaArchive network servers, so- the OSS? called LOCKSS caches, which are Program code repository configured to copy content, update it With its foundation in peer-reviewed https://github.com/lockss to its latest versions on a regular basis, research, articulated threat model, and ensure its integrity over time. decentralized architecture, and Program meeting opportunities years of reliable operation for https://plnwiki.lockss.org/index.php? All content is stored in multiple copies heterogeneous use cases, the LOCKSS search=pln+community+meeting&go on multiple caches at geographically software provides digital preservation =Go dispersed locations. The MetaArchive capabilities that are unmatched by network manages the number of other existing systems. By unbundling Is there anything else you want to replication so that a loss of all copies its functionality and enabling its tell us? becomes extremely unlikely. If an integration into new contexts, Thank you for the opportunity to institution loses preserved content for LOCKSS will be poised to improve the participate in this project! whatever reason its content is restored preservation conditions or more and in its original form. more different kinds of content. What would you want to get out of the conference? Who is your target audience? What are specific challenges faced by We are interested to learn more about Any institution seeking a digital stakeholders in support of this OSS? strategies that other projects have preservation storage solution, As is often the case for open-source adopted to support sustainability and including but not limited to libraries, software, the LOCKSS software is not engender community engagement. We archives, museums, and other cultural as well documented as we would like. hope to contribute to and hear more heritage institutions. We are making major improvements about other projects’ best practices for on this front in the course of the open-source software sustainability. How would you categorize software re-architecture effort. your program’s current stage of development? Maintenance – in production, supported, potential transition to a new focus/version.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 77 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
MetaArchive LOCKSS What is the rough percentage of OLE – Open Library (continued) institutions contributing to the Environment software? Less than 25% Is your program affiliated with What is the high level purpose of an organization that provides Are your communication platforms, the OSS? organizational infrastructure and software development tools, and OLE is an active community of support? If yes, please indicate the documentation openly available academic and research libraries name of the organization and the to all? collaborating to build open source, type of support it provides. No extensible, and service-driven library Yes; The MetaArchive Cooperative is an management tools. The OLE Partners affiliated community of the Educopia Please describe restrictions, if any. share a common vision to empower Institute which provides organizational Restricted to members only librarians and libraries by pooling infrastructure and support. our resources and directing our What are specific challenges faced by expertise and insights. OLE provides What is the license for the software? target audience? the infrastructure and governance BSD-3-Clause Libraries, archives, museums and for effective collaboration between other cultural heritage institutions institutions with shared interests in Is there any formal governance of need an easy to use, low-cost digital developing, using and extending open the OSS? preservation storage solution. source library management tools Yes Academic institutions are facing for the global library community. increased fees for utilizing campus Our focus is on developing strong If yes to previous question, does data center storage solutions. Small community organization and the governance extend beyond the organizations have limited resources vision that drives our activities that originating institution/entity that in terms of finances and staff time to include software development, created the product? prepare content for ingest and long- feature specification, and innovation Yes term preservation. in practice and use of library management tools. If yes, please describe how Program website representatives are chosen through https://metaarchive.org/ Who is your target audience? election or other processes. Academic and research librarians MetaArchive’s implementation of Program social media and libraries. LOCKSS is governed by the Steering @metaarchive Committee leadership group. How would you categorize Program code repository your program’s current stage How are major and minor https://github.com/MetaArchive of development? decisions made? Maintenance – in production, MetaArchive’s Steering Committee Is there anything else you want to supported, potential transition to a group is responsible for making all tell us? new focus/version. decisions related to technological I skipped a number of questions as infrastructure including the these were more relevant to the primary Is your program affiliated with implementation of LOCKSS. LOCKSS team at Stanford University. an organization that provides organizational infrastructure and How many organizations are using What would you want to get out of support? If yes, please indicate the the OSS? the conference? name of the organization and the MetaArchive has over 60 member Contribute to the conversation type of support it provides. institutions that are using its and strategizing for developing Yes; Open Library Foundation – fiscal, implementation of LOCKSS. community-based sustainability legal, organizational infrastructure. strategies for open source What percentage of users are outside software projects in the cultural What is the license for the software? of the USA? heritage community. ECL-2.0; Apache-2.0 Less than 25% Is there any formal governance of In what ways do institutions the OSS? contribute to the project? Yes Code contributions; Documentation; Domain expertise.
78 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
OLE – Open Library In what ways do institutions Is integration/compatibility Environment (continued) contribute to the project? with another system essential Code contributions; Documentation; to your project’s success or Domain expertise; Financial value proposition? If yes to previous question, does contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ Yes. Library management software the governance extend beyond the advocacy; Peer support. Collaborative must integrate with a wide and originating institution/entity that infrastructure – i.e. web conferencing, diverse range of other systems. created the product? code repository, wiki, shared files, etc. These include vendor systems for Yes purchasing or licensing library What is the rough percentage If yes, please describe how materials, vendor metadata of institutions contributing to production services, bibliographic representatives are chosen through the software? election or other processes. utilities, license management systems, More than 50% OLE has a membership model that campus identity management systems, learning management lets new institutions join and gain Are your communication platforms, systems, interlibrary loan systems, seats in governance. An OLE Partner software development tools, and reading room management systems, is guaranteed a seat on the Board of documentation openly available storage management systems, and Directors, but other roles are elected to all? information discovery systems. based on interest, experience, Yes and availability. Without these integrations, OLE Please describe restrictions, if any. would not be capable of serving as
How are major and minor There may be some documents a functioning library management decisions made? related to operations, like system, and so, would not be under Major decisions are made by the OLE budgeting and hiring documents, that consideration by libraries for use. Board. OLE has a Steering Committee are restricted. that researches and prepares issues Does the project/program have a for decision by the Board. These What was the date of the first release technology roadmap? issues are strategic and directional and/or when did the project start? Yes – budgeting, grant writing, new OLE organized in 2010 to develop If yes, how is it produced and how partners, collaborative opportunities, software for library management, and often is it updated? and overall scope. our first code release was in 2010. We It is informed by goals established by Minor decisions are made by released code every 6 months until the OLE Board, and in collaboration appropriate structures within OLE. The we released production code in 2014. with the Product Council. This is Project Manager will make decisions The original OLE effort to determine guided by the Managing Director. about support and coding. The direction and participation from the The scope of the technology Product Council will make decisions library community (not a software roadmap is the product of the OLE about desired functional scope. The build effort) was in 2009 – 2010. Steering Committee. Managing Director will make decisions What was the date of the latest about Community operations and major release? Approximately how many developers obligations, as well as, the strategic have contributed to the project The latest release, OLE 3.0, was agenda for OLE. to date? released in May 2017. 3-10 How many organizations are using the OSS? Approximately how many Three libraries. code committers and committing organizations are What percentage of users are outside actively contributing? of the USA? We currently have 6 active 25%-50% committers, and all of the OLE Partners are contributing to this effort either by providing developers who are committing code, or by funding shared developers hired by OLE to commit code.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 79 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
OLE – Open Library Describe your onboarding strategy What was the source and funding for Environment (continued) for new contributors or include link to initial development of the software? info if online. Self funded with matching Andrew W We stratify our community into Mellon Foundation funds. Is there a dominant organization that developers and subject matter provides committers? experts. For each cohort, we do have How long did initial development and We have, in the past, had a on boarding approaches that focus testing take before the software was commercial software development on expectations for participation released for community adoption? firm as the dominant developers. and contribution, wayfinding around 3 years. We are pivoting away from this project documentation, project model towards a community organization and personnel, and shared Are there competing products, either contribution model. communications and development tools. proprietary or open source? Yes, there are a few. Are any of the committing We are currently working on online documentation of these processes. organizations for-profit entities? What are your aspirations for Yes there are. Initially all software Does the program have paid staff? If the OSS? development for OLE was done so, how many FTE? To provide an ecosystem that through contracted commercial Yes; 4 breaks down the proprietary single- developers. We have changed source solution product lines that this model in favor of contributed What is the current annual budget for expect libraries to adopt a suite of resources (cash or staff) that let us the project/program? software from a single vendor. What build our developers as local resources $500,001-$1 million we are looking to do is provide to our Partners. We find that this is infrastructure that lowers technical more effective since these developers How is the program currently barriers of entry for smaller software are much more familiar with library being funded? development efforts, both proprietary operations and ecosystems, and more Funding comes from Partner and open source, that can address engaging for the OLE Partners since membership dues. We have had compartmentalized solutions that they have developers on staff that are significant grant funding from the fit into a working platform that deeply embedded in shared Mellon Foundation. And partners coordinates data, functionality and code development. contribute significant staff resources, interface across many contributed and in some cases, tools or facilities. pieces of software. The analogy How do you cultivate/organize the would be like a smart phone that coding community? How many stakeholders can incorporate “apps” from many We have a Project Manager who contribute financially? different providers with different oversees and coordinates the activities Currently we have 12 stakeholders. business models that can share a of OLE developers. We deploy senior single implementation, share data, and How many stakeholders contribute developers who operate with deep other infrastructural affordances. experience, but almost as importantly, developer resources? Among operation like a product manager in stakeholders who contribute What are specific challenges faced by taking care that the code output not developer resources, what is the stakeholders in support of this OSS? only meets the specifications, but average contribution? Sustaining investment and human conforms to community expectations. 4 stakeholders contribute developers. effort over the course of several years. We take time to on board developers The typical commitment is 0.5 FTE, Finding sustaining organization that and inculcate them into the open although we do have one developer works across institutional boundaries source ethos of approach, coding that is a full time commitment. and is welcoming of supply chain standards, and personal responsibility. vendors as peers. We are developing a mentoring What is the next major milestone for approach for new developers that will the project? How do you plan to fund What are specific challenges faced pair them with current developers that that effort? by developers? are well versed in the community. We are investing in the FOLIO project Developing an architecture that is (http://folio.org) now and the next built to provide solutions to other major milestone is a v1 release slated developers trying to solve issues in for midyear 2018. We are funding library automation. The architecture our substantial contribution to FOLIO must be flexible, make as few with our own resources – staff, cash, assumptions as possible to improve grant funds. innovative opportunities for “apps.”
80 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
OLE – Open Library Is there anything else you want to organizational infrastructure and Environment (continued) tell us? support? If yes, please indicate the OLE is undergoing substantial name of the organization and the change after 8 years of existence as type of support it provides. What are specific challenges faced by a partnership. We are opening up Yes; Roy Rosenzweig Center for target audience? our community to encourage wider History and New Media at George There is less and less competition, participation and partnering in new Mason University (facilities, HR) rigid pricing model, and a lack ways to increase the capability, and the Corporation for Digital innovation. The challenge of libraries capacity and innovation of our Scholarship (fiscal). comes from the changing nature community. We embrace commercial of the scholarly record moving to participation that supports the open What is the license for the software? embrace a more diverse medium for source ecosystem, and seek to balance GPL-3.0 transmission and preservation. And the commercial needs for return a growing set of expectations from on investment with the needs of Is there any formal governance of parent institutions for managing new libraries for products that target new the OSS? forms of scholarly output, discovery engagements and relevancy Yes and reuse. on campus. If yes to previous question, does Do you have service providers that What would you want to get out of the governance extend beyond the help you or the community? If so, the conference? originating institution/entity that with what? Deeper insight into how open created the product? Development; Hosting; source communities are organizing No Implementation; Maintenance; themselves to sustain efforts, How are major and minor Migration; Training. Strategic increase velocity of development, and decisions made? alignment of supply chain with engaging with the supply chain. Also During Omeka team sprint planning libraries and campuses. looking for how to build a bias for and review sessions, and then at openness in libraries and across What, if any, is the financial other planned meeting times our vendors. arrangement between the project and when necessary. these service providers? How many organizations are using They are providing substantial Omeka investment and bringing commercial the OSS? management paradigm to our Impossible to tell by organization; sustaining investments and What is the high level purpose of Omeka.net has over 45,000 users; the community management model. the OSS? software has been downloaded more Web publishing platform for sharing than 150,000 times. Program wiki and displaying collections and for http://wiki.folio.org creating online narratives (exhibits). What percentage of users are outside of the USA? Program website Who is your target audience? Less than 25% http://folio.org Librarians, archivists, museum professionals, scholars, educators and In what ways do institutions Program social media their students, history enthusiasts contribute to the project? @folio_lsp and collectors. Code contributions; Financial contribution; Outreach/advocacy; Program mailing lists How would you categorize your Peer support. http://ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation. program’s current stage of org development? What is the rough percentage Self-sustaining – project has sufficient of institutions contributing to Program code repository resources to continue ongoing the software? https://github.com/folio-org development, community support, etc. Less than 25%
Is your program affiliated with an organization that provides
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 81 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Omeka (continued) Is there a dominant organization that How many stakeholders contribute provides committers? developer resources? Among Are your communication platforms, This varies, mostly by project needs, stakeholders who contribute software development tools, and from universities to libraries. developer resources, what is the documentation openly available average contribution? Are any of the committing to all? None, but it would be nice! organizations for-profit entities? Yes Not that we are aware of. What is the next major milestone for What was the date of the first release the project? How do you plan to fund How do you cultivate/organize the and/or when did the project start? that effort? coding community? February 2008, first funded officially Omeka S 1.0 and major module release We worked very hard cultivate a as “Omeka” in October 2007. will come by fall 2017, and those are community of users through making funded through existing grants and What was the date of the latest major our code available in public and for support from CDS. release? creating documentation in an editable What was the source and funding for 2.5 released in February 2017, and 2.5.1 Wiki (which we had to close because initial development of the software? will be released next week. of excessive spam and few actual editors outside of the project team). Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Is integration/compatibility From a 2010 report on Omeka: Institute of Museum and Library with another system essential Services. to your project’s success or http://omeka.org/about/project/ value proposition? How long did initial development and Describe your onboarding strategy testing take before the software was Yes, Omeka’s output formats, API, for new contributors or include link to released for community adoption? import capabilities, and structured info if online. 6 months. metadata requirements enables this We provide documentation for end across multiple systems. users and developers. All of the design Are there competing products, either Does the project/program have a and developer documentation for proprietary or open source? technology roadmap? version 2.0 and higher can be found Yes, there are a few. on Omeka’s Read the Docs site: http:// Yes omeka.readthedocs.io/en/latest/. What are your aspirations for Omeka. If yes, how is it produced and how net the OSS? Does the program have paid staff? If often is it updated? That it continues to serve the needs so, how many FTE? It is updated every 6 months, to of our community, and that it will Yes; 5 a year. be supported by our institution and through Omeka.net subscriptions. What is the current annual budget for Approximately how many developers the project/program? have contributed to the project What are specific challenges faced by to date? $50,001- $250,000 developers? Continued funding to work on the More than 50 How is the program currently project. being funded? Approximately how many code committers and Grants for software-specific What are specific challenges faced by committing organizations are development; grants for digital target audience? actively contributing? projects that use Omeka; contract Omeka users want a reliable and web design and development work; Since we moved to GitHub, there are supported web publishing software support income from Omeka.net paid 43 people committing to the Omeka that will continue to offer new themes plans; and donations. Classic and Omeka S core code, plus and plugins/modules. there are many plugin contributors How many stakeholders Program wiki (who have actually submitted to the contribute financially? http://omeka.org/codex/ Omeka AddOns directory) numbering 0. Documentation over 25.
82 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Omeka (continued) Who is your target audience? In what ways do institutions Higher Education. contribute to the project? Program website Code contributions; Documentation; How would you categorize your http://omeka.org/ Domain expertise; Financial program’s current stage of contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ Program social media development? advocacy; Peer support. @omeka Self-sustaining – project has sufficient resources to continue ongoing What is the rough percentage of https://www.facebook.com/ development, community support, etc. institutions contributing to OmekaRRCHNM/ the software? Is your program affiliated with 25%-50% Program mailing lists an organization that provides https://forum.omeka.org/ organizational infrastructure and Are your communication platforms, support? If yes, please indicate the software development tools, and Program training name of the organization and the documentation openly available These happen all over and people type of support it provides. to all? don’t necessarily coordinate with us. Yes; Apereo Foundation. Nonprofit Yes Program code repository registered in New Jersey to provide What was the date of the first release https://github.com/omeka umbrella support for projects serving the educational mission. and/or when did the project start? Program news and updates Project start 2004. v1.0 release What is the license for the software? http://omeka.org/blog/ December 2004. first “mature” ECL-2.0 release” June 15th, 2005. Program meeting opportunities Is there any formal governance of What was the date of the latest Depends on the year. the OSS? major release? Is there anything else you want to Yes Sakai 11.00 23 July 2016. 4 subsequent tell us? point releases – last Sakai 11.4 If yes to previous question, does We are approaching our 10th 02 June 2017. the governance extend beyond the anniversary as a digital humanities originating institution/entity that Is integration/compatibility FOSS project, and we have reached a created the product? with another system essential point where we have gotten so reliable to your project’s success or that our support is taken for granted. Yes value proposition? We need help from our user base to If yes, please describe how tell us when they are applying for Yes. Backend integration with Student representatives are chosen through Information Systems, front end funding to build something new, and election or other processes. to offer some monetary compensation integration with specialist learning Sakai Project Management Committee that represents and respects the labor tools via (a) internal Sakai API’s, periodically proposes extension of its the Omeka team now donates to the (b) IMS LTI. membership based on merit. success of multiple DH projects. Does the project/program have a How are major and minor technology roadmap? decisions made? Yes Sakai (an Apereo Project) Largely by vote on public list or at face to face meeting. Very occasionally by If yes, how is it produced and how What is the high level purpose of the private list. often is it updated? OSS? Produced and maintained by Sakai Collaboration and Learning How many organizations are using PMC and Community Coordinator. Environment – essentially, the the OSS? functionality of a Learning 300+ (estimate). Approximately how many developers Management System, with additional have contributed to the project What percentage of users are outside functionality to enable less to date? structured collaboration. of the USA? More than 50 25%-50%
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 83 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Sakai (an Apereo Project) How is the program currently What are specific challenges faced by (continued) being funded? stakeholders in support of this OSS? Supporting subscription, Lack of understanding of OSS in “crowdfunding” special projects higher ed, strong commercial- Approximately how many (small donations from institutions for proprietary competition (promoting code committers and specific work), in kind contributions, own software, spreading FUD re OSS), committing organizations are sponsorship of events. significantly distributed international actively contributing? community. Funded by institutions, so 30-40 committing organisations at How many stakeholders almost zero formal marketing effort. any one time. contribute financially? 80+. Do you have service providers that Is there a dominant organization that help you or the community? If so, provides committers? How many stakeholders contribute with what? No. developer resources? Among Development; Hosting; stakeholders who contribute Are any of the committing Implementation; Maintenance; developer resources, what is the Migration; Training. organizations for-profit entities? average contribution? Yes. Apereo Commercial Partners 30-40. Not possible to quantify What, if any, is the financial with an interest in Sakai make in detail in terms of FTE – arrangement between the project and contributions. significant variance. these service providers? None. How do you cultivate/organize the What is the next major milestone for coding community? the project? How do you plan to fund Program wiki Recognition programs, engagement that effort? https://confluence.sakaiproject. by a community coordinator, Sakai 12 release. Resource raising org/display/CONF/ coordination of specific areas of goes beyond “funding,” main Welcome+to+the+Sakai+wiki activity – internationalisation, resource raising contributions in accessibility. Listservs, webinars, open kind. Crowdfunded accessibility Program website online meetings, face to face meetings work, institutions paying commercial https://www.sakaiproject.org/ at the Open Apereo Conference, affiliates for specific features which Program social media annual Sakai Camp. are contributed to main codebase. https://www.facebook.com/apereo/ Describe your onboarding strategy What was the source and funding for @sakaiproject for new contributors or include link to initial development of the software? info if online. Grant + matched funding from Program mailing lists No overall formal process, different 6 institutions. https://www.apereo.org/content/ strategies for different roles – QA, contact-and-mail-lists new testers documentation. New How long did initial development and contributors need to complete testing take before the software was Program training contributor agreements, core team released for community adoption? https://www.youtube.com/user/ informal mentoring and feedback via 12 months. SakaiCLE Github and lists. Are there competing products, either Program code repository Does the program have paid staff? If proprietary or open source? https://github.com/sakaiproject so, how many FTE? Yes, there are many. Yes; 3.7 Program meeting opportunities What are your aspirations for the https://www.apereo.org/conferences/ What is the current annual budget for OSS? open-apereo-2017 the project/program? Broadly speaking, to continue to $50,001- $250,000 support educational institutions, lead standards based flexibility, and to help transform the somewhat rigid LMS into a more flexible environment to support learning, teaching and research.
84 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Samvera If yes, please describe how How many organizations are using representatives are chosen through the OSS? What is the high level purpose of election or other processes. Individual organizations we can the OSS? Samvera governance consists of identify is 62. Samvera offers value to any Community Partners and a small Steering Group (SG). Community What percentage of users are outside organization needing to manage of the USA? and preserve digital assets. Samvera Partners work to set the community 25%-50% software was conceived as an open and technical direction in addition to source repository framework. That other contributions. An SG advisor solicits a potential Partner to formally In what ways do institutions is to say that we set out to create contribute to the project? a series of free-to-use software join, following nomination by at least one existing Partner and consensus Code contributions; Documentation; “building blocks” that could put Domain expertise; Financial together in various combinations to from Steering. SG votes to admit the new Partner upon receipt of a signed contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ achieve the repository system that an advocacy; Peer support. institution needed – as opposed to Letter of Agreement and a Letter of Intent. The Steering Group acts as a building a “one size fits all” solution. What is the rough percentage secretariat for the Community and of institutions contributing to manages its legal, financial, identity Who is your target audience? the software? and communication concerns. SG The audience includes experts in Less than 25% technology leadership, project serves as a formal representative for managers, service owners, software the Community, and the ultimate point Are your communication platforms, developers, dev ops, metadata, data of escalation, when either is needed. software development tools, and management, digital preservation, etc. SG consists of representatives from documentation openly available the founding institutions who have to all? How would you categorize expanded the group to no less than 5 Yes your program’s current stage voting members. SG members must of development? be supported by a Partner institution. Please describe restrictions, if any. Self-sustaining – project has sufficient New members are nominated by at The Steering Group secures sensitive resources to continue ongoing least one SG member and admitted by information. Institutions adopting development, community support, etc. a majority vote of SG. If a SG member software may also secure their leaves the supporting institution, they modifications if the end result has Is your program affiliated with are entitled to continue participation organization restrictions or sensitive an organization that provides within the SG as a non-voting advisory data. The mailing lists are restricted to organizational infrastructure and member subject to a majority vote of the function such as partners, steering or support? If yes, please indicate the SG. Each institution represented has project work. The community list is open. name of the organization and the only one vote. type of support it provides. What was the date of the first release Yes; DuraSpace – fiscal and How are major and minor and/or when did the project start? decisions made? legal support. The project was initiated in September Both major and minor decisions 2008 at a meeting at the University What is the license for the software? are made in accordance with of Virginia between Virginia, the Apache-2.0 role responsibilities of Steering, University of Hull, Stanford University Partners, Working Groups, Interest and Fedora Commons (which became Is there any formal governance of Groups, projects and the core code the OSS? DuraSpace). The early meetings focused committers. Every member of on understanding the area we came Yes the community is encouraged to together to explore, how to enable contribute their skills, voice their ideas, If yes to previous question, does flexible repository solutions based on and concerns. Groups may specify the governance extend beyond the a series of building blocks. Software lazy consensus at the time of a vote originating institution/entity that development did not start until 2010, but otherwise leverage the Apache created the product? with the first commit on 2nd May of style of vote expression with a +1 Yes that year. Partners made use of these as agreement, a -1 as disagreement components in different ways for their and in some cases a veto, and a 0 as own needs initially. A formal release of neutral or undecided. If a decision the software that others could access cannot be made, it is escalated. via GitHub took place in November 2011.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 85 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Samvera (continued) Is there a dominant organization that What is the next major milestone for provides committers? the project? How do you plan to fund What was the date of the latest Stanford University. that effort? major release? A key recent focus has been on Are any of the committing The latest release of the core solutions built using Samvera, e.g., organizations for-profit entities? component for Samvera was January Hyku. Major milestones thus include 4th 2017 (version 10.4). Note that Data Curation Experts is a consultancy the launch and support for this and this is the hydra-head gem, and that that both supports institutions in then a re-visit of the core components implementations will need to make creating their repository solutions and to ensure they remain refreshed and use of a combination of other gems contributes to the project as a whole. up-to-date. These activities are funded through Partner contributions in kind. available through the project’s GitHub How do you cultivate/organize the Organizationally we are looking to site, or use a package of these such as coding community? Hyrax (latest release version 1.02 on establish better community working Though a variety of communication June 30th 2017, a recent innovation practices and have instigated an annual channels and principles of practice – building on previous packages like fundraising initiative to support this. see https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ Sufia and Curation Concerns). samvera/Developers. What was the source and funding for Is integration/compatibility initial development of the software? Describe your onboarding strategy with another system essential Donations from the for new contributors or include link to to your project’s success or founding partners. info if online. value proposition? See https://github.com/samvera/ How long did initial development and The combination of gems and hydra/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING. testing take before the software was dependencies between these is md released for community adoption? essential to the successful use of Approximately 18 months. Samvera. This can be managed locally Does the program have paid staff? If or through use of the package of so, how many FTE? Are there competing products, either gems made available (Hyrax). There No proprietary or open source? is no other integration/compatibility Yes, there are a few. required. Samvera is a solution What is the current annual budget for set built on the Fedora digital the project/program? What are your aspirations for repository system, and thus is bound $50,001- $250,000 the OSS? to developments of that system. We seek to expand and diversify How is the program currently being Also, Solr is leveraged for indexing. membership through courting funded? However, the system is designed to international partners, gaining more manage these links loosely to avoid Grants, in kind contributions and adopters as hosted solutions emerge over-dependence. donations from the Partners. and deepening value to museums, Does the project/program have a How many stakeholders archives and small cultural technology roadmap? contribute financially? heritage organizations. No If limited to financial donations, What are specific challenges faced by approximately 33%. stakeholders in support of this OSS? Approximately how many developers have contributed to the project How many stakeholders contribute Challenges include limited availability to date? developer resources? Among or intense competition for grants and local resource constraints at individual More than 50 stakeholders who contribute developer resources, what is the institutions with competing demands. Approximately how many average contribution? Establishing use of an OSS solution which does not fit into a commercial code committers and We have individual CLAs for staff at all purchasing culture can be difficult. committing organizations are Partners in the initiative (plus others actively contributing? not yet participating as Partners). What are specific challenges faced by There have been >50 active Active contributions are made by about developers? contributors in the last 12 months, 33% (often tied to those contributing Gaining sufficient support and time from across the pool of 63 financially), a combination of software to contribute. organisations that have registered a development and other contributions. CLA to contribute. The average level of contribution in FTE has not been calculated, though.
86 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Samvera (continued) Program news and updates Specify Software Project We do not produce a regular What are specific challenges faced by newsletter. However, we published an What is the high level purpose of target audience? annual report earlier this year – http:// the OSS? Selling the value and sustainability samvera.org/2017/05/01/hydra-2016- The Specify platform is a database of OSS within their institution can annual-report/. We also hold cataloging application focused on t be a challenge. The turnover of staff a monthly Partners call to keep he specimen holdings of natural at all levels of member institutions Partners up-to-date and foster history collections, including plants, challenges value of and continuity of sharing of activity. birds, fish, herps, mammals, insects, commitment. Highlighting the value Program meeting opportunities other invertebrates, and tissue of managing digital assets for the and DNA samples derived from See list of events at https://wiki. long-term, a service-oriented rather museum specimens. duraspace.org/display/samvera/ than software-oriented issue, can also Events%2C+presentations+and be a challenge. Who is your target audience? +articles. Samvera holds an annual Natural History Museums and Do you have service providers that event, Samvera Connect. Biodiversity Repositories, worldwide. help you or the community? If so, Is there anything else you want to with what? How would you categorize tell us? Development; Hosting; your program’s current stage Samvera as a framework serves as a Implementation; Maintenance; of development? solution or a foundation for specialized Migration; Training. Maintenance – in production, applications. Avalon for audio & video supported, potential transition to Program wiki is a perfect example as is Hyku which a new focus/version. http://wiki.duraspace.org/display/ provides a polished, feature-full cloud samvera based repository application. The Is your program affiliated with answers we have provided have been an organization that provides Program website focused on the core software for the organizational infrastructure and http://www.samvera.org most part, not these solutions that the support? If yes, please indicate the framework has enabled. If it would name of the organization and the Program social media be useful to garner responses for type of support it provides. http://twitter.com/SamveraRepo the different solutions alongside the Yes; University of Kansas, Space, framework please let us know. HVAC, Equipment, Some salaries, Program mailing lists Local Domain (Biology) Expertise. See: https://wiki.duraspace.org/pages/ What would you want to get out of viewpage.action?pageId=87460391 for the conference? What is the license for the software? details of lists available. We have developed an approach to GPL-2.0 making an open source community Program training effort sustainable and engaging. We Is there any formal governance of We run workshops and other sessions are conscious that there are other the OSS? at an annual Samvera Connect event, models, and also that we have much No and also at other relevant conferences, to learn as we continue to evolve as an e.g., Open Repositories, code4lib, organisation as well as a community. How are major and minor DLF Forum, etc. We also now run an To that end, hearing from and decisions made? annual Virtual Connect event, with understanding what has worked well In weekly project meetings and online presentations delivered through for others will be of value. Whether quarterly planning meetings with staff. Webex. There is online training for there is a blueprint for future projects The Director has ultimate oversight developers available, plus Samvera we are not sure as every situation is and responsibility for technical Camps, 3-5 day events providing slightly different, but there is certainly priorities as PI on grant funding that a deep dive into the software and much valuable experience that can currently supports the project. We how to get going. A recent addition be tapped to guide others looking are moving to a non-profit, is an Advanced Samvera Camp for to achieve similar goals. We are also organizational structure with a board developers looking to expand their use. interested in exploring how open and advisory committees who will source communities best interact with then determine priorities. Program code repository each other, so as to foster a broader http://github.com/samvera goal rather than sit too independently of each other.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 87 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Specify Software Project Is integration/compatibility Describe your onboarding strategy (continued) with another system essential for new contributors. (Or include link to your project’s success or to info if online) value proposition? No formal strategy, yet. How many organizations are using Somewhat, we embed modules which the OSS? connect to web services provide Does the program have paid staff? If About 150 museum institutions, and by other projects. In late 2017 we so, how many FTE? within them about 450 individual will move to a Shibboleth-based Yes; 3.5 natural history collections. authentication systems which will What is the current annual budget for What percentage of users are outside make us compatible with campus identity servers. the project/program? of the USA? $50,001- $250,000 25%-50% Does the project/program have a technology roadmap? How is the program currently In what ways do institutions No being funded? contribute to the project? National Science Foundation grants; Code contributions; Domain expertise; If yes, how is it produced and how salary contributions from the State Peer support. often is it updated? of Kansas. What is the rough percentage Not formal roadmap. But we put forward project technology visions How many stakeholders of institutions contributing to contribute financially? the software? every 2-3 years in grant proposals, then we identify and titrate smaller Two. Less than 25% development priorities during the How many stakeholders contribute grant periods. This has worked Are your communication platforms, developer resources? Among satisfactorily in the past but as we software development tools, and stakeholders who contribute move to more formal organizational documentation openly available developer resources, what is the structures, we’ll need more explicit to all? average contribution? planning documentation. Yes Limited external developer contributions to date, 2-3 small What was the date of the first release Approximately how many developers modules over the last 6 years. and/or when did the project start? have contributed to the project to date? The Specify Project is a descendant What is the next major milestone for 3-10 of the MUSE software project which the project? How do you plan to fund was another natural history museum Approximately how many that effort? cataloging application. MUSE was code committers and Monetizing the project and creating launched in 1987 and was last updated committing organizations are a sustaining source of revenue to in 1993. Specify began in 1996, 21 years actively contributing? support it. NSF is funding us ago, we have been active since then. One. to develop a revenue and business model. What was the date of the latest Is there a dominant organization that major release? provides committers? What was the source and funding for We released a wholly-new platform, University of Kansas. initial development of the software? Specify 7, for the web in January 2015. National Science Foundation. Our latest major update release for Are any of the committing Specify 7 was in April 2017. Specify organizations for-profit entities? How long did initial development and 6 our thick-client’s last major release No. testing take before the software was was in November 2016. released for community adoption? How do you cultivate/organize the Two years. coding community? Word of mouth, invitations at Are there competing products, either meetings, peer to peer. proprietary or open source? Yes, there are a few.
88 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Specify Software Project Program website The Public Knowledge Project (continued) www.specifysoftware.org (PKP) is responsible for Program mailing lists the ongoing development What are your aspirations for [email protected] and support of an OSS the OSS? suite consisting of Open Sustaining the initiative through Program training Journal Systems (OJS); Open a consortium of natural history On demand and archived videos museums, based on membership fees. Monograph Press (OMP); Open Program code repository Conference Systems (OCS); What are specific challenges faced by https://github.com/specify stakeholders in support of this OSS? and Open Harvester System For NSF as the major funding Program news and updates (OHS) stakeholder to date, they would Blog on web site like us to demonstrate that our What is the high level purpose of user institutions actually value their Program meeting opportunities the OSS? 30-year investment by having us We attend museum discipline PKP’s software is primarily intended demonstrate a viable financial model professional conferences each year. to support scholarly publishing and for community-based fee support. The related communications activities. What would you want to get out of NSF thinks of us as the 30-year old in the conference? the basement who they have just told Who is your target audience? to leave and find a job. How to survive by successfully Academic researchers, scholars, and convincing major museum students; editors and publishers of What are specific challenges faced stakeholders that (1) we offer a good scholarly journals and monographs; by developers? value proposition and (2) that by publishers and university presses; The usual learning curves with investing in the long-term governance conference conveners. new software requirements and and participation in a non-profit understanding those requirements software consortium, that they will How would you categorize your particularly as they relate to the UI not only be better off themselves but program’s current stage of and UX. by investing in community-sponsored development? cyberinfrastructure, (3) but they Self-sustaining – project has sufficient What are specific challenges faced by will raise the tide for all the smaller resources to continue ongoing target audience? collections (including collections development, community support, etc. Understanding how they at many at state universities) who conceptualize their own data and how have little or no budgets for software Is your program affiliated with those concepts map into Specify’s licenses, and thereby help sustain the an organization that provides 300 table database schema. Also research collections community, and organizational infrastructure and putting up with our limitations as they its education and research future. support? If yes, please indicate the name of the organization and the perceive them for their specific work flows and project goals. type of support it provides. Yes; The SFU Library has been the Do you have service providers that home base for PKP since 2005. help you or the community? If so, Simon Fraser University provides a with what? full range of administrative support – Hosting. HR, financial, procurement, research services, legal. What, if any, is the financial arrangement between the project and What is the license for the software? these service providers? GPL-2.0 We pay their monthly fees. Is there any formal governance of the OSS? Yes
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 89 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
The Public Knowledge Project How many organizations are using Is integration/compatibility (PKP) is responsible for the OSS? with another system essential to your project’s success or value the ongoing development PKP does not have any registration requirements to download and use the proposition? and support of an OSS software, so we have no precise way PKP is committed to ensuring its OSS suite consisting of Open to track users. We have developed is compatible with other systems Journal Systems (OJS); Open some tools to regularly identify and services that intersect with Monograph Press (OMP); Open currently active (i.e. published at least scholarly publishing. This includes 10 articles in the most current year) repository platforms such as DSpace Conference Systems (OCS); OJS installations on an annual basis – and Dataverse; discovery services and Open Harvester System in 2015 we identified over 10,500 OJS such as Google Scholar; persistent ID (OHS) (continued) instances. providers such as Crossref and Orcid; campus authentication systems; and What percentage of users are outside so on. If yes to previous question, does of the USA? the governance extend beyond the More than 50% Does the project/program have a originating institution/entity that technology roadmap? created the product? In what ways do institutions Yes Yes contribute to the project? Code contributions; Documentation; If yes, how is it produced and how If yes, please describe how Domain expertise; Financial often is it updated? representatives are chosen through contribution; Leadership; Outreach/ It is tracked in GitHub, and is updated election or other processes. advocacy; Peer support. regularly: https://github.com/pkp/pkp- PKP’s current governance structure lib/milestones. is somewhere between informal What is the rough percentage and formal. Since 2012, PKP has had of institutions contributing to Approximately how many developers three community based committees the software? have contributed to the project – Advisory, Technical, Members. Most Less than 25% to date? of the members are chosen from 11-25 PKP’s major development partners Are your communication platforms, and sponsors, with periodic calls software development tools, and Approximately how many for volunteers to address turnover. documentation openly available code committers and The Advisory Committee is the to all? committing organizations are closest equivalent to a Board or Yes actively contributing? Steering Committee for PKP with GitHub lists 55 contributors to OJS: a representative from each major What was the date of the first release https://github.com/pkp/ojs. development partner (currently OCUL, and/or when did the project start? SFU Library, Stanford University, PKP was founded by John Willinsky in Is there a dominant organization that University of Alberta Library, 1998 when he was a professor in the provides committers? University of British Columbia Library, Faculty of Education at the University Outside of SFU, the University of University of Pittsburgh Library). of British Columbia. The first releases Pittsburgh (a PKP development Representatives from the wider of OJS and OCS appeared in late partner). PKP community are also invited to 2001/early 2002. participate on the Technical and Are any of the committing Members committees. What was the date of the latest organizations for-profit entities? major release? Yes, but very few, e.g. Lepidus, for very How are major and minor OJS 3.0 was released in September specific purposes. decisions made? 2016 and was a major rewrite of the Operational decisions are made software. There have been several collectively by the PKP Directors. incremental releases since then with Larger strategic planning and related OJS 3.1 scheduled for release in the decision making is done in conjunction Summer 2017. with the three community based committees, in particular the Advisory Committee.
90 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
The Public Knowledge Project How is the program currently What was the source and funding for (PKP) is responsible for being funded? initial development of the software? the ongoing development PKP relies upon a combination of A Social Sciences and Humanities three revenue sources: hosting/ Research Council (SSHRC) grant and support of an OSS publishing services (approx. 50%); provided by the Canadian government suite consisting of Open grant funding (30%); and community in the early 2000’s was the first Journal Systems (OJS); Open support through sponsorships, etc. funding source for PKP’s software Monograph Press (OMP); Open (20%). development. Conference Systems (OCS); How many stakeholders contribute How long did initial development and and Open Harvester System financially? testing take before the software was (OHS) (continued) PKP currently has 4 major released for community adoption? development partners who provide The first versions of OJS and OCS were annual financial support ranging developed over an 18-24 month period How do you cultivate/organize the from $15K to $60K, and another 10-12 and then released for community use. coding community? sponsors who provide between $1K to Initial uptake was slow, but by 2005 The PKP Technical Committee $10K annually. there were already several hundred provides an ongoing forum for journals using OJS. After that, uptake developers. PKP has also been hosting How many stakeholders contribute increased dramatically, in large part sprints every 6-8 months for the developer resources? Among driven by the interest in open access past three years that bring together stakeholders who contribute publishing models. developers and other community developer resources, what is the members for a two day F2F event average contribution? Are there competing products, either where specific tasks are identified and PKP’s 4 development partners proprietary or open source? worked on collectively. also provide in-kind support Yes, there are many. roughly equivalent to their financial Describe your onboarding strategy contribution. Initially, the intent had What are your aspirations for for new contributors or include link to been to focus on development work the OSS? info if online. but we realized it was often more PKP wants to provide an open source We direct them to contributor appropriate for these partners to alternative to the more proprietary documentation, hold an onboarding provide a more diverse range of commercial platforms while also: hangout, and assign a couple of support, e.g. coordinating projects, 1) advancing the adoption of open training-wheels tasks. They’re allowed participating on the support forum, access publishing; 2) helping to into the team Slack channel for Q&A providing translations, preparing and increase the quality of OA publishing; and discussions, and occasionally revising documentation, participating and 3) democratizing access to tools into weekly teleconferences. Then we in testing, etc. for scholarly publishing to expand check with them after a few weeks participation globally in the “scholarly to a month to find out what their What is the next major milestone for conversation.” progress is like. As they finish the the project? How do you plan to fund training wheels tasks we perform code that effort? What are specific challenges faced by review and give feedback. PKP will be implementing a major stakeholders in support of this OSS? new service – Open Typesetting Stack Many stakeholders have limited Does the program have paid staff? If (OTS) – in the next 12-18 months. OTS budgets and technical expertise, so, how many FTE? is a central software platform that especially the large numbers located Yes; PKP has between 8-10 fete staff provides an automated XML rendering in the developing world. Consequently, at any given time, although the total service along with new web-based PKP has identified non-technical areas, head count is typically between 15-20 tools to edit the resulting output. e.g. language translations, where as many staff are part-time or working Providing a centrally based service stakeholders can support on a contract basis. The staff consist is a new area for PKP and we are the project. of technical specialists, librarians, still evaluating the most appropriate and academics. “business model” that will be an What are specific challenges faced appropriate sustainability strategy for by developers? What is the current annual budget for KP does not have a large developer the project/program? a software platform that will also be released as open source. community, as many of our users are More than $1 million not coders.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 91 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
The Public Knowledge Project Program mailing lists Who is your target audience? (PKP) is responsible for http://forum.pkp.sfu.ca/ People who publish academic the ongoing development research: Publishers, librarians, Program training editors, authors. and support of an OSS http://pkpschool.sfu.ca/ suite consisting of Open How would you categorize Program code repository Journal Systems (OJS); Open your program’s current stage https://github.com/pkp/ of development? Monograph Press (OMP); Open Pre-release Testing. Conference Systems (OCS); Program news and updates and Open Harvester System https://pkp.sfu.ca/category/news/ Is your program affiliated with an organization that provides (OHS) (continued) http://us9.campaign-archive2.com/ home/?u=c77872e5151e785e8d77dd organizational infrastructure and cfb&id=0b562838b0 support? If yes, please indicate the What are specific challenges faced by name of the organization and the target audience? Program meeting opportunities type of support it provides. Many members of our target audience https://pkp.sfu.ca/conferences Yes; West Virginia University. have minimal technical expertise, so making customizations to code Is there anything else you want to What is the license for the software? for local needs or even performing tell us? MIT upgrades can be a challenge. A successful OSS project isn’t exclusively about developers and code Is there any formal governance of Do you have service providers that contributions. PKP relies on a wide the OSS? help you or the community? If so, variety of support and contributions No with what? from our user community and many How are major and minor Hosting; Implementation; of them do not have a high technical decisions made? Implementation. At PKP, we make use requirement. For example, OJS of a commercial ISP service for some is available in about 25 different Through discussion between project of our hosting. The vast majority of languages and all of the translation PI and developers as well as with local our software users work with other contributions come from the library and university staff. third party service providers for community. Similarly, PKP’s activities installation, hosting, updating, and In what ways do institutions have expanded beyond software to contribute to the project? training. Most of these are libraries, include a number of key services such Financial contribution; Leadership; but some are other academic units or as the PKP Private LOCKSS Network Course re-assignment for PI; Grad private companies. and the PKP Index. These also have student assistance; Administrative support and sustainability issues. What, if any, is the financial assistance; In-kind time of staff. arrangement between the project and What would you want to get out of Are your communication platforms, these service providers? the conference? software development tools, and Only our development partners and We expect the conference will be a sponsors provide any financial support documentation openly available great opportunity to compare and to all? back to the project. discuss sustainability strategies for Yes OSS and hope to come away with Program wiki some additional ideas and strategies. https://pkp.sfu.ca/wiki/ Please describe restrictions, if any. Some in-staff communication tools Program website (Slack) are not open to the public Vega https://pkp.sfu.ca/ because they cover a lot of different projects. Program social media What is the high level purpose of https://twitter.com/pkp the OSS? What was the date of the first release and/or when did the project start? https://www.facebook.com/ It is an authoring and editorial publicknowledgeproject/ management platform for creating The project started January 1, 2015. open-access publishing venues, We have not released yet. https://www.youtube.com/user/ particularly those with high PublicKnowledgeProj multimedia components.
92 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
Vega (continued) How is the program currently What are specific challenges faced by being funded? developers? What was the date of the latest Grant, plus minimal in-kind The difficulty of building major release? contribution from institution in terms real-time multimedia editing and We conducted initial user testing on of PI and staff time commitments. The annotation features. part of the system on June 1, 2017. next phase will be about creating a sustainable business plan. What are specific challenges faced by Is integration/compatibility target audience? with another system essential How many stakeholders For publishers/editors: Knowing about to your project’s success or contribute financially? the platform. Not having staff to value proposition? Two: the Mellon Foundation, in its adopt the platform (our phase II grant Yes. It has to connect with local initial funding of the project, and WVU request intends to ameliorate this authentication programs, archival through its in-kind time of the PI and in part). Not wanting to go OA. (We systems, etc. in a way that Vega can key staff (technology librarians). have not build a non-OA version yet. be flexible enough for local devs to Perhaps that becomes part of phase How many stakeholders contribute II.) Knowing how to incorporate/edit build APIs between their systems developer resources? Among and ours. Vega also relies on two OS born-digital scholarship (also a phase stakeholders who contribute II project). systems that the developers have developer resources, what is the already created: Gradient (content average contribution? For authors: Knowing about the store) and Sanity (CMS), both of which platform. Knowing how to author None, besides the dev team, which is ship seamlessly with Vega. multimedia scholarship (something getting paid from the initial grant. In we’re already working on through phase two, WVU Libraries will have a Does the project/program have a NEH IATDH funded workshops half-time dev ops person dedicated technology roadmap? and will continue as part of phase to Vega. Yes II). Getting access to the platform What is the next major milestone for (something either publishers and/or If yes, how is it produced and how the developers can offer). Getting over often is it updated? the project? How do you plan to fund that effort? “tenure” bugaboos in terms of digital Program developers have a timeline scholarship. that gets updated on a weekly basis, Hiring staff who can support the and reviewed with PI and amended creation of a sustainable business Do you have service providers that every 6-8 months. plan. This is planned for early 2018, help you or the community? If so, when Vega is released publicly, and with what? our plan is to seek grant funds to Approximately how many developers No. We plan on doing that help with initial support for hiring the have contributed to the project ourselves. to date? additional staff until the business plan 3-10 generates revenue in 3-5 years’ time. Program wiki https://sanity.io/docs/quickstart How do you cultivate/organize the What was the source and funding for coding community? initial development of the software? Program website We are developing a plan for the next Mellon Foundation . http://vegapublish.com phase. How long did initial development and testing take before the software was Program mailing lists Does the program have paid staff? If released for community adoption? Listserv available on the website so, how many FTE? No It will have been 3 years when it is Program training released later this fall. http://kairos.camp What is the current annual budget for the project/program? Are there competing products, either What would you want to get out of proprietary or open source? None the conference? Yes, there are a few. Learning from others who’ve been What are your aspirations for doing this longer. the OSS? To compete with Open Journal Systems and be an industry standard for multimedia scholarly publishing.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 93 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
VuFind How are major and minor What was the date of the first release decisions made? and/or when did the project start? What is the high level purpose of Issues and feature requests are most 2007. the OSS? often reported by our community. For minor issues, the lead developers What was the date of the latest VuFind is a discovery layer that can major release? be easily used as a library OPAC but is of the project decide on and take a Version 3.1.3 was released on March also adaptable to many other search course of action, publishing to the 10th, 2017. Upcoming release this applications. It provides abstractions master branch on GitHub. Major summer (4.0). on top of multiple search services changes are brought up with the larger community via email mailing and integrated library systems and Is integration/compatibility includes a flexible mechanism for lists and a bi-weekly, open, online developers’ call. Major changes with another system essential “Bento-style” searching. to your project’s success or Who is your target audience? are publicly developed as GitHub pull requests and announced when value proposition? Libraries and other cultural heritage VuFind depends heavily on Solr, organizations are a primary audience, merged. All version releases are scheduled and documented with which is openly-available, widely- but the software can be easily used, and included in our package. adapted to search almost anything. the help of the community. The direction of the project is also largely Some users run VuFind on top of a How would you categorize your roadmapped at annual conferences, third-party web-scale discovery API program’s current stage of attended by our international in place of Solr. When being used development? community. as a library OPAC, the software also needs to interact with an integrated Self-sustaining – project has sufficient How many organizations are using library system (ILS). The ILS provides resources to continue ongoing the OSS? functionality for users to request/ development, community support, etc. VuFind has 193 voluntarily listed renew books, login, and determine Is your program affiliated with installations worldwide. real-time availability status for the an organization that provides results VuFind presents. Not all users organizational infrastructure and What percentage of users are outside use ILS systems, but our support for a support? If yes, please indicate the of the USA? large range of systems makes VuFind name of the organization and the More than 50% an appealing and helpful choice. type of support it provides. In what ways do institutions Does the project/program have a Yes; Villanova, through Falvey contribute to the project? technology roadmap? Memorial Library, supports the Code contributions; Documentation; Yes development of VuFind by employing Domain expertise; Financial staff to work on the project and using contribution; Leadership; If yes, how is it produced and how the VuFind tools for our collections. Outreach/advocacy. often is it updated? What is the license for the software? Our roadmap is always discussed with What is the rough percentage of the community and is decided on GPL-2.0 institutions contributing to the annually at our Developers Summit. Is there any formal governance of software? The roadmap is visible in our wiki and the OSS? 25%-50% (to an extent) on our GitHub page. No The technical requirements for running Are your communication platforms, VuFind are decided on at each major If yes to previous question, does software development tools, and release and maintained until the next the governance extend beyond the documentation openly available major release. originating institution/entity that to all? created the product? Yes Approximately how many developers have contributed to the project Yes Please describe restrictions, if any. to date? We are using the free version of More than 50 Slack which is not easily configured for free signup. An invitation is required but we provide access to all who request.
94 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
VuFind (continued) Does the program have paid staff? If What is the next major milestone for so, how many FTE? the project? How do you plan to fund Approximately how many Yes; Two contributors employed that effort? code committers and by Villanova University, providing No major milestones requiring committing organizations are approximately 1.5 FTE to the project. additional efforts are planned; at this actively contributing? stage, support of the software largely What is the current annual budget for consists of keeping dependencies Two fulltime contributors with anywhere the project/program? between 3 and 10 active community up to date, adding support for new None contributors depending on the current external systems, and ensuring that the user interface does not scope of development. Each year, over How is the program currently become stale. 20 community developers contribute being funded? at least some code. The project is sustained largely What was the source and funding for Is there a dominant organization that through dedication of staff time rather initial development of the software? provides committers? than specifically budgeted money. VuFind was originally a project Events such as the Developers Summit Changes are proposed via GitHub specifically for the Villanova library are designed to be self-funding and are developed with the two lead that was later adapted into an open- through registration fees. Historically, developers and ultimately approved source project. the project has received several grants and merged by the two leads. and donations from appreciative How long did initial development and Historically, the lead developers have organizations, but it does not rely on testing take before the software was always been hosted by Villanova. these for ongoing operations. released for community adoption? Are any of the committing VuFind was first put in source How many stakeholders organizations for-profit entities? control under SVN and published to contribute financially? There has been some interaction SourceForge in 2007. In 2012, the There are no specific stakeholders with for-profit entities (for example, project transitioned to GitHub. committed to ongoing contributions EBSCO, which supported the product’s to the project (apart from staff time); Are there competing products, either EBSCO Discovery Service integration), however, the project typically receives proprietary or open source? but most of our users and contributors one or two financial contributions Yes, there are many. are academic institutions and libraries. each year from varying organizations. What are your aspirations for How do you cultivate/organize the How many stakeholders contribute the OSS? coding community? developer resources? Among Provide a free and flexible We use the open-source project website stakeholders who contribute discovery layer solution that excels GitHub to organize code changes developer resources, what is the in configurability, customization, and intention. Our wiki provides open average contribution? community, and support. documentation, maintained with the As noted above, Villanova devotes community. We have a JIRA instance approximately 1.5 FTE to the project. What are specific challenges faced for issues. Travis and Jenkins run Several European libraries dedicate by developers? continuous integration testing on the significant ongoing resources to At this stage, some of the main project and potential contributions. VuFind development, though their challenges facing the project are Describe your onboarding strategy exact FTE investment is not known. simply keeping up to date as the for new contributors or include link to Additionally, as noted above, many technology landscape continually info if online. smaller contributions (a few hours per changes, and maintaining a robust testing infrastructure. Potential contributors frequently year) from different organizations are arrive on the vufind-tech mailing list, also made. This is difficult to estimate where community support enables since most contributions to VuFind them to learn how to implement come from customizations users changes in the software. When initially make for their own instances changes are ready to be contributed and adapt for sharing later. back to the main project, code reviews in GitHub pull requests are used to help refine and polish contributions and to provide feedback and guidance to developers.
It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability 95 Table of Contents Using the Guidebook Sustainability Wheel Governance Technology Resources Engagement Appendices
D: OSS Program Survey Results
Appendix D: OSS Program Survey Results
VuFind (continued) Program wiki https://vufind.org/wiki What are specific challenges faced by Program website target audience? https://vufind.org The software ecosystem seems to become ever more complex, with Program social media more tools and more dependencies. https://twitter.com/vufind (not VuFind aims to be as easy to install active) and maintain as possible, but over the years, it has become more complex to Program mailing lists keep up with common development https://sourceforge.net/p/vufind/ best practices. mailman
Do you have service providers that Program code repository help you or the community? If so, https://github.com/vufind-org/vufind with what? Development; Hosting; Program meeting opportunities Implementation; Maintenance; https://vufind.org/wiki/ Migration. community:conferences
What, if any, is the financial What would you want to get out of arrangement between the project and the conference? these service providers? We hope to share our experience with There is no formal arrangement other communities and potentially between VuFind and any of the find points of collaboration and companies that commercially interoperability. support it; however, some have made voluntary contributions in the past.
96 It Takes a Village: Open Source Software Sustainability