Repository

During OSBC I was able to catch up with a number of fellow Alfresco customers. All of us are eager to gain a better understanding of how Alfresco will proceed with its repository harmonization. During the Alfresco Community in New York repository harmonization was a major theme during the Ask the Experts session. Clearly it's an important area of concern for customers.

Alfresco's road map on the wiki states the following priorities for 2008

• New and enhanced team and enterprise collaboration services

• Publishing and management services for dynamic, Web 2.0-enabled websites

• Web client usability

• Scalability, performance, and enterprise-readiness

• Standards

It's difficult to tell if repository harmonization is included in these initiatives or not. Clearly it is not spelled out as a explicit initiative unto its own. I am looking forward to the MuSCoW roadmap / release schedule we were told about at during the User Meetup in San Jose. MuSCow stands for Must do, Should do, Could do, Won't Do.

I had a thought today that I need to follow up on. We have been talking about "Repository Harmonization." I, for some reason assumed this meant that the two repositories will be consolidated in to a single solution, taking the best features and capabilities from each. This is a probably a question of semantics -- but I got to thinking today: "harmonization" is not by definition consolidation. Harmonization implies two or more entities acting in harmony (for example two guitar string vibrating at agreeable [very technical -- I know] frequencies.) I am still under the impression that harmonization means consolidation but I want to follow up and make sure. Clearly the combined feature set is important to the customers that I've had the fortune to speak with.

Acquisition Motivation and Customer Interests

At OSBC this year a panel discussion was added to the agenda called “Can Open Source Communities Survive Mergers / Acquisitions?” The panel was moderated by Robin Vasan, and included representatives from MySQL, Zend, SleepyCat, and Jboss. This was one of the best talks I was able to attend.

Zack Urlocker of MySQL (now Sun Microsystems) said something that resonated with me. He said when they [MySQL] were acquired by Sun it was because they saw Sun as an environment where they could grow MySQL at an accelerated pace. MySQL wasn’t simply working towards an “exit." They were/are building a big, customer focused software company and this exit was the next logical step.

I really appreciated this concept. I don’t care for the idea of companies who like the beef industry, which, raises cattle for the harvest (slaughter); build businesses just to be sold. The motivation in my opinion is wrong. I understand the pure business justification. This course of action makes perfect sense for the entrepreneur but I question the value and effect it has on the customer.

Customers want the focus on their interests. When it comes to companies investing in software; they want to know that the company is A: focused on the product and it’s ability to meet customer needs, and B: the company is going to be around for a good long while. An open source company building itself simply to be bought; that is, a company which has the primary objective of reaching an exit is in my opinion at serious risk of accomplishing neither because the motivation directs the focus elsewhere.

Acquisition may be the right move but I think the motive behind getting to that point is of great importance. In general I think exits aught to be thought of as new beginnings on sronger footing. When exits are simply exits, it is a red flag for the customer. Customers, Customers, Customers – this is what matters.

Open Source and "Commerical Interests"

Lorenzo E. Danielsson has an interesting blog post here, which responds to this post. I wrote the post on the 26th and later edited out some of the things I thought were off topic which was:

Open Source companies aught to be able to grow their business to the scale of organizations like Microsoft. On the way there we stand to learn some things from companies like Microsoft where they have (very limited at the moment) experience with going open. Is it good or bad for society when companies get this large? IMO, it depends -- transparency matters at scale.

In fairness to Lorenzo and Alfresco I need to make clear a few things and also make available the text, which Lorenzo has commented on. I stand behind what I’ve said; I just didn’t think it helped the post in terms of staying on topic.

First. I don’t work for Alfresco. I’m a community member. My opinions are my own.

I absolutely believe that open source has the potential to create both economic and vast social benefit. Apache, Eclipse, Linux for example have created a feedback in the economic/social ecosystem that without open source simply would not exist. The kind of productivity that free and open source software produces is very special and very important. It has the power to change the world and it is doing so.

I like many have trepidation with large amounts of centralized power but this is because “absolute power corrupts absolutely. “ We can't count of the benevolence of individuals or organizations because it is almost always temporal. In our industry IBM, Microsoft, Google have all struggled or continue to struggle to maintain the balance of scale and public perception. Be transparent, focus on the customer.

To address some of Lorenzo’s points:

Lorenzo commented on this text I edited out the other evening:

Open Source is not about the bits, it’s not about the community, and it’s not about licenses. It’s about a better way to do business (read: make money via serving customers.) Have you read the Clue Train Manifesto? Does it sound familiar? They don’t have any bits, community or licenses. They only have a model based on the fact that A: the world is massively connected, B: the fact that customers are as informed and in some cases better informed than vendors and C: the fact that the market now has the capability and the expectation to engage in bi-directional or n-directional conversation with vendors and other customers. They have a model that sounds a whole lot like open source without all the distracting implementation details.

Lorenzo responds:
It’s not about community, because community implies those ungrateful masses who are supposed to serve the elites. The elites have built up a system called wage slavery which is how things are supposed to be done. Community is the start of dangerous dissent against the ruling order. Never mind that those communities wrote the software. Once the labor is done, business can take over.


The System that is Open Source would not survive on community alone. “It’s not about community” is meant to say that open source is not a hierarchy of components but a network and that community alone does not make open source what it is. Community is a very important aspect of Open Source – however it IS NOT what open source IS. Community is a significant node in the network in that it can push both negative (regulating) and positive (re-enforcing) feedback on to the network. I like Lorenzo believe that the community should be strong via its rights (example: right to fork, right to vote on direction) and diverse.

Lorenzo further commented on this text I edited out the other evening:

The software industry has historically been abusive to its customers. Open Source promises to focus on the customer and that inclusive conversation. So source code, it turns out, is in a big way merely the olive branch: a statement of commitment to the claims we make. Don’t believe me? You probably use MySql or Apache. Do you care about the source code? Almost none of us do. I would be sorely upset if I found my development staff was hacking MySql code. I want my developers in the community, I want them to contribute but source code has very little to do with anything on the business side. I do care that MySql is open source. It has nothing to do with access to the source code per se. That olive branch makes it very clear that MySQL has to focus on creating value through service – they cannot abuse their customers or community.

Lorenzo responds:

So, in summary, Russ Danner sees in open source the possibility for big business to take the work of various open source communities and use it to make huge profits. The communities themselves are, as we have seen, irrelevant. Any claims they make equally so (remember, licenses are irrelevant). So Russ sees open source as yet another way for the rich to bleed to poor. And that is good.

He goes on to say:

“I would be sorely upset if I found my development staff was hacking MySql code.”

I guess development staff means “wage slaves”. What does sorely upset mean? That you deny your developers the freedom to work on what they want to work on? Does it mean that the right to choose only exists for the capitalist class, the bosses? If one of your developers worked on MySQL code on his free time, would you punish him or her for that? What if the changes the developer made to MySQL was beneficial to Alfresco in some way, would that developer be credited for that? Or still punished for their insubordination against the elite way?

But could the open source movement work for social change? Well, not in isolation. But it can play a part. One must be careful not to see all open source users or open source developers as a part of a coherent whole. The only thing that connects us all is the fact that we work on or with software that fits the criteria of being called open source or free software. Otherwise you have the full spectrum of political beliefs, including Russ Danner’s capitalist ones, or the outright racist viewpoints of Eric S. Raymond.

Context is important here and I failed to provide that in what I said. If my developers want to work on MySQL or other open source software (that is contextual [rather than core] to my business) on their own time – more power to them. When it comes to what they work on at work? It’s important that what they work on serves the organization. I’m not saying every task must be direct. I spend a lot of time in the Alfresco community and yes.. my employer pays for it, and yes.. that is the right thing for them to do because its an investment in the employee (me) and the technologies they rely on (Alfresco.) That said… If we were to spend our time developing the core components of Alfresco we wouldn’t be serving the core needs of our business and that is wrong. We may be able to help and we are certainly willing but we do need to consider where we focus development. I believe Alfresco should look for community partnership in core development, but I also believe that it will be rare that they find it. Development is expensive business and both sides must find ways to leverage each other in a fashion, which is symbiotic.

I believe open source and business are important partners. Open Source and in general the ideas put forward in Clue Train bring balance to the system by empowering the members of the market with a voice and a recognized lion share of the power. It rightly positions the companies in a position of service rather than in a position of supreme power with the potential for the kind of abuse that is associated there. I have become a fan of commercial open source companies who use dual licensing and the GPL. It clearly states code or cash is the price for this software. This provides both the economic and social feedback effects to come to play more fully. Should people be compensated for their work? Yes, without a doubt in my mind. Should we have a social conscious? Yes Absolutely. I think that open source is capable of accomplishing both. Commercial interests do not have to be void of social interests. I believe in strong leaders who see social interests as commercial interests hence the Peter Drucker quote.

Lorenzo, thanks for your response. I will spend some more time thinking about what you have written.

Open Source - Growing Up

As far as I am concerned, OSBC is the most important conference of the year for those who are looking to use open source to create leverage for their business. If you were not able to attend this year … know that you missed out and you should make an effort to get to next years event; it’s the week of March 10th: plan accordingly. :-) For those that couldn’t attend, you can find a lot of analysis here on Matt Asay’s Blog, The Open Road. There were many interesting, insightful, and practical keynotes and sessions over the course of the two-day event. Of particular note: R0ml Leftowitz’s talk on IT: Forget The Factory, Enterprise IT is a Deli, all keynotes/footnote addresses, the panel on open source acquisition, and several of the panel discussion where customers were able to give real world feedback on their experience implementing Open Source. As a customer trying to walk in their shoes the customer centric sessions and keynotes are extremely helpful.

I am very grateful for OSBC, the folks who put it together and for those who take time to speak and attend – it’s simply an invaluable opportunity to learn from and interact with the brilliant folks who are changing the face of the software industry as we know it.

Every OSBC has had a transformative effect on my thinking concerning open source and this year is no exception. However, this year the thinking is of a much different nature than in years past and I’m still trying to digest and understand it. It’s probably not the best idea to blog until I have come to terms more fully with my thoughts but what the heck… what fun would that be?

This year I attended a talk titled “What can Open Source learn from Microsoft and the proprietary world.” Moderator Steven Walli (Consultant), Jean Barmash (Alfresco), Neelan Choski (SpringSource), Jim Zemlin (Linux Foundation) and Sam Ramji (Microsoft). I have to admit I was pretty excited for this talk. Steven Walli has a fantastic way of cutting through the spin and getting to the point. Sam is Director of Open Source and Linux Strategy at Microsoft. Jim is Executive Director at the Linux Foundation and Jean and Neelan are members of highly successful, fast growing commercial open source organizations. What a topic! What a line up!

Does Open Source have something to learn from Microsoft? My hypothesis? You better believe it! Microsoft’s business is orders of magnitude larger than the entire open source market as a whole at the moment. The open source industry is trying to institute open source from the bottom up. If Microsoft were to open up, it would have to do so from the top down. Small groups inside Microsoft may favor open source but real, timely change is going to take someone with a title that includes the words: “Director” or “EVP” and “open source” and a top-level management commitment. It takes control of the helm to effectively turn an aircraft carrier.

I’m not familiar with Sam Ramji (Microsoft Corp, Directory of Open Source and Linux Strategy) or his work – I’m not familiar with what kind of strategy he is responsible for concerning open source or Linux in his role at Microsoft. From the open source perspective, is his position used for good or evil? Is Sam a voice for change or is he a “Ring Wraith” carrying out the dark work Mt Doom. To be perfectly clear, I have no idea – I still don’t know for sure. I tried to attend the session with an open mind and with hopeful expectations that Microsoft might indeed be recognizing some advantages in opening up and thus they have someone like Sam to help champion and ultimately apply some of open source’s principals to improve their business.

Is shared source open source? I wouldn’t call it open source but they do have an OSI approved license. Does Microsoft’s brand of open satisfy the open source community?
From what I can tell: not at all. However, it is a start – at least that is how I view it.

Sam seemed to be coming from the perspective that Microsoft does in fact see some advantages in the open way. My conclusion? “Not a Ring Wraith.”

The panel discussion was good and all of the panelists gave strong presentations and good information. However, there was, in my opinion, minimal discussion on What Open Source can learn from Microsoft and the proprietary world. Instead, there was a lot of information, particularly from the open source side on how Open Source currently does it. It was all good information but I left disappointed.

I felt we had missed a golden opportunity to cross-examine Microsoft and the gentleman who seemed to be trying to facilitate some openness in the giant. We (Open Source) did a really good job of talking about and in some cases defending open source and a rather poor job of searching and listening. Sam’s perspective is different from “ours”, his problems are different and he’s working at the scale we all want to achieve (assuming you are a capitalist pig like me.) Shame on us. We should have made Sam work hard, really hard during this session. We don’t have to justify the existence of Open Source or the benefits of its models. The fact that Microsoft via Sam and Brad Smith were present at OSBC already demonstrates this for us. Further, do we honestly believe our current way of operating scales up to Microsoft-like size without modification – it hasn’t demonstrated that it can so far? Let’s not get lazy – even if we think we have the answers, we must continue to ask the questions over and over, again and again. “The answers change much more often than the questions.” -- Peter Drucker.

The open source community gets so worked up about how open Microsoft is or isn’t. I’d be willing to say we’re not going to be satisfied (if we even could be) with anything less than Microsoft’s full and unconditional surrender to our terms of openness.

What I think is interesting, and what I think you might find interesting if you really pay attention at an event like OSBC is that while everyone agrees there is tremendous value in Open Source, there is really no consensus on where exactly it is. Many point to code, community, licenses, cost savings, distribution etc. We understand to a large degree the overall effects of the system but we often get caught up in the details or are ignorant of how they work together to produce the effects that they do. What I’m saying is that even within the community many are still working to understand the dynamics of open. Given that, we’re not exactly in a strong position to say why it is that Microsoft or anyone else should be so open or just how open they should be. Opening up is almost a “personal” journey that has to be tailored to each organization that embarks on it. Openness is leverage but that has to be demonstrated and learned. Few are willing to take leaps of faith. Many are carrying so much legal, culture and other legacy baggage that the journey is slow, complicated and encumbered.

I'm not sure we are yet in a position to be telling anyone how it should be. We are in a position to demonstrate some real customer value -- but -- we clearly have more to learn and demonstrate. By our fruits not by our rhetoric..

Redhat is the crown jewel of Open Source but it’s only doing 500 Million a year. Compared to Microsoft, Redhat has some growing to do. Does Redhat want to scale to Microsoft size – I really hope so. I believe that open source delivers more value per dollar than the alternatives and at Microsoft’s scale that would constitute a huge amount of value. We’re never going to get there unless we think and ultimately operate at that scale – which means learning from those who are already there. It strikes me as sad and ironic that the open source community can sometimes be so closed-minded.

San Jose : Alfresco Community Summit

Today Alfresco held a community summit & bar camp in San Jose, Ca. In my opinion this was the most valuable Alfresco event to date. Great Job guys.

Unfortunately I was not able to attend in person but was able to catch most of the event on line.

The event was one highlight after another. All of the speakers did really well and every presentation had something to offer. To get the presentations log on to the Alfresco content community (http://hosted4.alfresco.com/alfresco/faces/jsp/login.jsp)

John Newton (Alfresco CTO and Chairman) began by describing at a high level, the vision for Alfresco, both as a technology and as a player in the market. Alfresco is working hard to build an open source based platform for Social Computing. Social Computing is all about collaboration via social media tools both in and outside the firewall. Social computing is a growing concern in the enterprise as new generations of workforce are hired on. Each generation is more comfortable with the internet and its ever growing brand of social tools (including wikis, blogs, and platforms for social networking like Facebook and MySpace) than the generation before it. These employees are used to these tools and expect them to be available regardless of where they are working from. IT on the other hand is often responsible for security and compliance / regulatory concerns. Many IT shops initially push back on these social media tools because they lack the enterprise features that meet the requirements mandated by the regulatory groups (SOX etc.) As we move forward in this brave new world where the lines between inside and outside the firewall are blurred we'll need a platform that delivers our social tools outside our corporate walls while maintaining our ability to meet our enterprise requirements.

John explained with great clarity that in today's market there are no products with exception to Microsoft Share Point and Alfresco that fill this space. Most other relevant vendors are far too specialized or are fragmented along diverse product lines. John explained that while Share Point is able to operate in the space, it is not an ideal platform for the job and that it also comes at the high price of end-to-end vendor lock-in with Microsoft technologies. Alfresco on the other hand has been designed from the ground up on open technology specifically to fill this space.

Additionally, John spoke about plans within Alfresco to increase the level of transparency and community involvement with respect to the product road map. Alfresco plans to improve on accuracy and management of customer expectations with regard to the content and timing of releases. Alfresco has decided that delivering on time is priority #1 with respect to releases. The saying goes "on time, on budget, or at quality; pick two." In this case, quality and completeness will take a back seat to on time delivery. Concerned?! Put your mind at ease -- this makes a lot of sense. Enterprises require predictability. An inability to plan can often be crippling to a project. Knowing exactly when the next release of Alfresco will be available is absolutely critical to a healthy relationship between Alfresco and "The enterprise." It's important to know that when the product ships it will have what you need in it. Alfresco is taking steps to increase this awareness as well. They have decided to publicly prioritize the work they are and the work they are not planning on doing. This system is known as the MoSCoW system. MoSCoW stands for Must do, Should do, Could do, and Won't do. This is a wonderful addition to the product/project roadmap. Community members will know exactly when the release will take place and what they can reasonably be able to expect to be in it. Similarly you will find a list of items Alfresco "Won't do." It is just as important to understand where we are not going as it is to understand where we plan to be in the future. I am looking forward to this new level of clarity and transparency in the the road map.


From a technical perspective, web scripts continue to take center stage. Jeff Potts, Optaros principal ECM architect and Alfresco's contributor of the year gave a brief overview of Webscripts. A Web Script is the ability in Alfresco to create a RESTful service in Alfresco. Building a webscript is a really powerful and easy to do. You don't have to be a hard core programmer to do amazing things with Webscripts. If you can handle a (very) little XML, javascript and freemarker you are all set. Javascript is a really light and very easy programming language used to describe business logic, Free Marker is a simple template languag, and XML is used to describe and "bind" the service to the system.

After Jeff's introduction we saw some fantastic examples from customers, service integrators and Alfresco employees of what can be accomplished with a simple webscripts containing a few lines of "code."

Also worth mentioning is that Alfresco is currently hosting a Webscripts competition. You can find out more about it here: http://www.alfresco.com/partners/programme/webscripts/
Everyone who submits a valid web script will receive a limited edition Alfresco T-shirt. Our first place winner will receive an Apple iPod 16 GB Touch, the winner will be announced on April 4th, 2008.

For me the apex of the Webscript wonderment was the demonstration of the Dynamic website framework developed in partnership with the Alfresco sales engineers, the community and the product development team. Michael Uzquiano of Alfresco led a entertaining tour of the framework, demonstrating how simple it was to edit a dynamic website driven by Alfresco. One of the best ways to make changes to a website is to find the page and component you need to edit on your site and simply edit it directly. The website framework allows you to do just that. The framework supports the ability to enter edit mode anywhere on the site, at which point you are able to see how the page has been partitioned in to components. From that point you can add, remove or edit the individual components. All of this works seamlessly with the rest of the Alfresco WCM capabilities including sandboxing and the ability to promote / deploy your website to different environments (staging, live etc.) This is really exciting work. Michael said that we can expect to see the work he demonstrated in the the approximately a month.

Again I want to thank everyone who made this event possible -- it really was terrific!