Merger & Sakai (e.g.) Support?

[David Lassner]

Background: I'm a longtime/charter member of JA-SIG (sic) & Sakai but have never engaged in or with the governance of either.  We use software from both: Sakai CLE, CAS and a commercial uPortal variant are in full production here for ~70,000 students, faculty & staff on 10 campuses.

The note (below) from Aaron announcing the status of CLE 2.9 struck me as a pretty stark wakeup call that Sakai's approach to producing software is in trouble.  I sent my reply (also below) to the wrong lists last month  asking how the merger would help get quality software out the door.  That got me a very helpful private exchange with Chuck - thanks Chuck -- but no specific answers to my question.  So I'm glad this list is available to discuss the future.

I'm fully on board with the shared values of open source and the value of shared infrastructure.  It's wonderful to continue to build community in higher education around these principles.  

But Aaron's note is pretty clear about the need for commitment of significant resources to achieve difficult outcomes.  We all know that there are aspects of cranking out continuing upgrades and new versions of enterprise-quality software that aren't fun and don't necessarily get done by creative volunteers in their spare time.  So I was hoping the merger would help.

I read through the merger documentation, twice.  But I'm still struggling to understand how the merger will help get back on track what I guess in the new world will be the Sakai community subactivity of the new Apereo Foundation.  It looks like the Apereo foundation will initially have its hands full with continuing the pieces of the merger still undone, such as  coming up with a non-transitional fee structure, rationalizing IP & licensing approaches (or not), developing an approach to how Apereo communities interact with and relate to the Apereo parent, etc.  These "meta" activities to serve multiple open source software projects will be important to the Foundation and its shared goals.

But  there's still a need for a robust capability to steward the Sakai CLE as a high-quality enterprise application that meets the complex needs of students, faculty and administrators across a spectrum of institutions and continues to advance the application as those needs evolve in a rapidly changing world.  Not to mention OAE.  

The documentation (italicized below) seems to indicate that Sakai will be one of the individual project initiatives that will need to figure out its own fundraising and management to support the software and its users, within some new requirements TBD by Apereo.

funds raised through membership fees will be used to support Foundation staffing, infrastructure, and initiatives from which, in general, all communities and projects will derive benefit. This will include things such as conferences, web-based collaboration tools, communication services, and project facilitation. Again, as is the case today, specific decisions regarding how funds are allocated to these items will be determined by the Foundation budget which will be developed by the Executive Director and approved by the Apereo Board of Directors. It will be the Executive Director’s responsibility to make day-to-day operational decisions with regards to how Foundation staff time and effort are allocated.

As happens in both organizations today, individual projects and initiatives will be free to raise their own funds which they will be able to allocate as they see best. Communities engaging in independent fundraising of this nature will likely be asked to have a “financial contact” who is responsible for overseeing the use of such funds and acting as a liaison to Apereo. Other lightweight requirements, simply aimed at protecting the non-profit status of Apereo, may also be put in place depending on the specifics of the fundraising activities.

Can anyone on the inside share any thinking about how Sakai software will be developed and maintained when it is no longer even the singular focus of an eponymous foundation but rather one of many projects/initiatives within a broader community activity?  Or maybe this is something the merger team can consider in the next round of discussions?

thanks!
david



Begin forwarded message:

From: David Lassner <da...@hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: [Announcements] Sakai CLE 2.9.0 release status
Date: March 28, 2012 8:24:03 AM HST
To: Aaron Zeckoski <azec...@unicon.net>
Cc: announ...@collab.sakaiproject.org, produ...@collab.sakaiproject.org, Sakai 2 Technical Coordination Committee <sakai2-t...@collab.sakaiproject.org>

Thanks for the update Aaron, even if it isn't good news.  

This seems like a structural/organizational concern.  Can anyone advise whether/how the proposed merger is expected to help with this situation, specifically or generally?

best, david


On Mar 20, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:

Colleagues,

This is a status update for Sakai CLE on behalf of the TCC and the CLE

release teams. Unfortunately, 2.9.0 won't be released in the

March/April as initially projected. The release has struggled with a

number of issues including:

* Insufficient community participation in key areas of the release

process (e.g. perform testing/QA, fix bugs in certain areas like OSP,

etc.)

* Complications in the mechanics of the release process that are still

being worked through including use of the Sonatype OSS Nexus

repository, automated builds, and major changes in dependency

management

* Lack of dedicated, Foundation-led operational staff (e.g. full-time

QA director, full-time Release Coordinator)

We have no choice but to delay the 2.9.0 release until additional

contributors step forward to assist us. If your institution can

contribute QA testers for the 2.9 release, please join the QA working

group (saka...@collab.sakaiproject.org).  If your institution

can contribute developers to fix and verify bugs in the release,

please join the volunteer CLE Team

(cle-rele...@collab.sakaiproject.org). Without additional

community or foundation involvement, 2.9.0 will not be officially

released.

TCC Chair

Aaron Zeckoski

_______________________________________________

announcements mailing list

announ...@collab.sakaiproject.org

http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/announcements

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to announcement...@collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"

[Maggie Lynch]

This is a response to David Lassner's questions around Sakai support (primarily the CLE) both currently and post merger.  The answer will be lengthy, so please bear with me.

I've trimmed the post to get to his primary question:

"Can anyone on the inside share any thinking about how Sakai software will be developed and maintained when it is no longer even the singular focus of an eponymous foundation but rather one of many projects/initiatives within a broader community activity?  Or maybe this is something the merger team can consider in the next round of discussions?"

First, let me provide a very short answer, then for those who like to read long statements, you can read further. :)

SHORT ANSWER

Currently, there is not sufficient funds to provide the type of extent of staffing the CLE group wishes to see.  Therefore, without the merger there will still not be sufficient funds in the Sakai foundation to staff at the levels they are requesting. The Foundation is NOT immune to the current budget crisis that is facing the entire world and education specifically.  The majority of foundation funding comes from membership fees. Funding of the CLE and OAE projects primarily come from donations of time, materials, people, and cash.

Thanks to the OAE project fund raising effort, and their willingness to provide some compensation back to the foundation for using Anthony, we ARE now able to fund a FT person for the CLE project. Previously, the foundation was only funding 1/2 of Anthony's salary.  A job description has been developed with the TCC and a request for applicants has been tendered. This position will continue to be available for the CLE project whether we merge or not. 

The Sakai Foundation currently does not fund any project-specific positions for OAE (e.g., Anthony Whyte). The OAE community is funding that as well as other key positions. It is likely that the CLE community will need to find a model for sustainable funding as well.  It is unlikely that the Sakai Foundation general fund will increase sufficiently over the next year to support additional CLE staffing needs.

The merger will not significantly change any of the above situations.  It will not suddenly bring in an infusion of cash and provide a suddenly robust staffing plan.  It also will not take any money away from current projects in either organization.  Project funding levels and allocations will remain attached to those projects.  

Moving forward, the questions are:

1. Will the merger likely provide us more opportunities to share administrative costs--thus freeing up money for other priorities?  I believe it will free up some money.  I believe in the short term, that amount will not be significant enough to add additional FT staff.  

2. Will the merger more likely provide opportunities for cross-marketing and provide a story of product breadth that is more interesting to new adopters than a single-product focused organization?  I believe it will. We have already seen some evidence of that as we've spoken with institutions outside the U.S.  We have also seen some evidence of that in regards to projects that are aligned with our values, and have customers in the teaching and learning arena, but have not yet found a home and believe the merged organization will provide them an opportunity to share/integrate with us.

3. Will the shared infrastructure, and cross-pollination of people, ideas, and creative energy yield something more than one plus one that will be compelling to education? I belief it will.  My experience has been that when you get more bright minds together to solve common problems, the solutions are significantly better than what any one organization produces.

If you believe the answer is yes to the above questions, then vote for the merger.  If you believe the answer is no, then vote against it.

LONGER MISSIVE BELOW

Here is where I believe the misunderstanding of Foundation funding and staffing has originated. In the early days of Sakai, everything was funded with millions of dollars in grant money and some shared or matched personnel from the institutions who began the project.  In the early years of the Foundation there was a transition from the grant funded environment to the independent non-profit that became the Foundation there was still a lot of development, some follow-on grants that were related but institutionally independent, and a lot of initial uptake and excitement that drove initial memberships in the organization.

When I first joined the Board, the foundation had 5 funded positions: the Executive Director, a Sakai CLE QA Person, a Sakai CLE Project Manager/Community Coordinator, a Foundation Communications Director, and a FT clerical assistant who also did conference planning and some bookkeeping/invoicing. 

Cycle forward a couple of years and the Foundation finds itself in the midst of the worldwide economic downturn which began in 2008-2009 and, by some reports, is just now hitting bottom three years later.  Just as institutions have suffered significant cut-backs in their funding and had to reconfigure staffing, so too has the Sakai Foundation had to cut back. We had increased staff at the request of our membership and believed that the economy at that time (2007 and 2008) would continue to support that increase.  We did not anticipate the extent of the recession/depression. Since late 2009 and early 2010, two things were apparent to the Board. First, that some member schools were either significantly delaying payment of their membership fees OR deciding to cut the membership fee from their budget.  Second, those same schools which frequently provided staffing resources to work on projects were also withdrawing some of those resources back to their own central services as they cut junior personnel.  We needed to determine which positions to cut in order to stay within budget. 

The only FT position that has been retained in the Sakai foundation budget is the Executive Director. The foundation contracts for a part-time clerical assistant and a part-time accountant. These roles are critical for the Foundation to operate at all and to meet its financial and reporting obligations. Over the past year, we have seen some substantial improvements in memberships and funding levels because the Executive Director has worked VERY hard in two areas; 1) Pursuing accounts receivables, reminding current members of the value proposition for foundation membership and getting their renewed committment in both dollars and people; and 2) Telling the Sakai story around the world so that we bring in additional institutions to contribute to and participate in our community. The turnaround in our memberships and the potential for additional members has never been better in my time on the board.

Even with all of Ian's work, the dollar increases will take time. There are many new Sakai pilots, some in CLE and some in OAE.  I believe eventually we will get more traction for Sakai and we will see significant investment.  But it is also dependent on the economy and what current and future institutions believe their priorities are around software investment and what those institutions believe the value proposition is for paying membership fees. I personally believe the value proposition is increased when an institution sees more than one open source product (an LMS int he case of Sakai) available and with the potential for integration. 

How to Fund Specific Projects

During the last two years, the OAE project schools and one commercial partner decided that having a working OAE product, within a specified timeframe, was critical to their long term planning. They knew that the Sakai Foundation could not fund, now or in the next five years, the development at the level that was required (several million dollars) to achieve the timelines these institutions strongly believed were important.  These institutions each put up a significant sum of money and pooled those resources to ensure the project would stay on schedule.  It is because of this model that OAE has been meeting its deliverables and has gained so much interest in the teaching and learning community. This project sponsorship model is new to the Sakai Foundation, but not new in the open source world. In my opinion, this model has proven to be significantly positive and has been an important part of the OAE development teams being able to reach their deadlines.

To date, the CLE Community has not been able to suggest a funding model and execute on it. I believe they are capable of finding a model that works, but for some reason it hasn't happened yet.  Certainly there are significantly more schools invested in CLE than in OAE.  However, for some reason, schools that are heavily invested in CLE have not come forth and been willing to put in dollars or significant numbers of people to ensure the products continued development or building of a sustainable maintenance model.  In addition, though CLE adoption has grown over the past three years, Sakai memberships have not grown nearly as significantly as adoptions.  I personally believe the reason for this is twofold: 1) The economy; and 2) The mistaken belief that because open source is free there is no need, nor value, in paying a membership fee to a foundation.  This mistaken belief is one that the board needs to address and that all CLE community members need to wrestle with changing.

There are a number of people on the Board, as well as Ian Dolphin (Executive Director) who have been talking to member schools about making an investment in CLE.  There is no doubt it is a critical application in many institutions.  I believe we will see some funding for the CLE product in the future.  But that does not negate the need for a sustainable funding plan.  There are many models, but it is the CLE community which needs to lead this work. The Foundation and the Board are willing and eager to facilitate this work. 

HOW MIGHT THE MERGER HELP IN FUTURE FOUNDATION STAFFING?

Certainly, if money can be saved by sharing some expenses, that would free up money to add to Foundation staffing. However, there is unlikely to be significant short-term savings to see any significant staffing increases.  For me, it is the longer term potential of the merged organization that may allow for broader Foundation investment. 

It is possible that the combined organization will be able to increase membership in the foundation.  With a diverse product line, there is more exposure to additional open source options for each person/institution who may currently be initially engaged in a single product offering. That diversity of products may encourage institutions to support specific products (through direct donations or sponsorship) and/or the Foundation as a whole through membership.  In terms of new customers, some institutions may see us as a more robust community that can meet more of their software needs.  New customers may also see more opportunity for themselves to engage in development because the diversity of products allows for smaller institutions to commit to initially smaller development efforts until they feel comfortable with the community and can be mentored to larger development efforts. In the past, Sakai has relied almost exclusively on about a dozen large schools for development support.  Those large schools led the initial development of CLE, and many of those same large schools are now switching to the initial development of OAE. This suggests to me that we are indeed fortunate to have those schools willing to invest in a longer term vision for the future.  On the other hand, it also tells us that we did not do a good enough job of expanding the developer pool for CLE in advance of pursuing the new OAE product. That means we did not do enough out reach beyond the usual members and provide interesting and valuable reasons for them to fill in behind CLE.  We are trying to do that now.

There has already been some initial discussions with other open source product development teams, outside of Ja-sig and Sakai, around interest in becoming part of the merged organization.  Though these discussions are preliminary, I believe they all speak to the realization that not every open source product can afford to sustain their own non-profit organization and support structures.  In addition, there are other open source foundations who are watching us and discussing options around joining or affiliating in some manner.  There seems to be  a shared recognition that a consolidation of organizations might be beneficial to the community as a whole and to the sustainability of the products. The reasons are: leveraging economies of scale where possible, sharing administrative and communication infrastructures at a savings, jointly determining how to incorporate standards and provide interoperability among the various efforts, and perhaps finding a way to consolidate software efforts that are similar into a single, robust shared product.  As schools and other projects see possible alignments it also brings in more opportunities for shared resources.

HOW MIGHT THE MERGER HELP INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT FUNDING?

There are two beliefs around this question.  One group believes that by expanding product options it attracts larger funding pools because we are able to provide ERP level solutions for institutions.  Institutions that are spending hundreds of thousands or millions on proprietary solutions may be willing to invest in open source development and integration across a range of products at significantly less dollars.  A different group believes that by expanding product options there is less money for everybody and no body gets enough to survive.  This is based on the belief that all investment comes from the central foundation and is equally shared among all products.

The discussions between Jasig and Sakai, around this multi-product funding and management dilemma, has been to require an incubation process. One part of that process is that each project has to have a funding plan that ensures its development and sustainability.  Depending on how the product governance model works, that funding plan may differ from one product to the next.  Some may choose to replicate the OAE model where institutions who contribute are the ones who vote on product timelines, priorities, etc.. Other communities-of-interest may choose to pursue grants as their primary funding model, or to solely pursue personnel commitments from institutions though longer term MOUs. The proposed bylaws and guidelines for the merged organization allow for several approaches.  In this way, each product and its supporters are responsible for their own success.  It also ensures that monies which are raised for the purpose of development, support, or sustainability of a specific product are allocated only to that product.

If a product is unable to secure funding or is unable to sustain support, then it is a sign that there is not a sufficient community interest around that product.  Sakai has always been about community source, and the merged organization will continue to be about community source.  That means the responsibility lies with the community.  Instead of having a corporate-like structure which determines which products live and die, the community-source model leaves that determination with the community. 

I believe the reason we see a rise in educational interest with open source solutions is for two reasons: 1) the accurate belief that solutions written by and for education will be the best solutions for their institution, and 2) the belief that overall institutional costs will reduce with openly licensed software.  As long as these same institutions are willing to provide some support for these critical investments, I believe we will be strong and the many communities of interest and subsequent products can be managed under a larger umbrella foundation.  I believe the larger foundation model will allow for shared administration, communication, and will achieve economies of scale.  I believe that cross-marketing and the move toward ERP level solutions will provide an infusion of funding to the Foundation and to individual products.  I believe that educational institutions will win big in the end and the Foundation will still flourish because of it.

Of course, I might be wrong.  The success or failure of the merged organization, or any single project within the organization, truly lies with the community.  Is the open source community willing to continue to invest in the community source model in both personnel and treasure for those products that serve their needs?  If not, it doesn't matter whether we merge or not.  If, instead, people believe that open source means free and no investment is made by anyone, we will all die.

Change is tough. New models of funding are tough. Managing more than one product is tough.  But I think if we don't find ways to merge resources, leverage talent across projects, and invest in a larger vision then we will ultimately fail.  This is true of the Sakai Foundation alone or the merged organization.  The question is: Are we stronger together?  I believe we are.   What you believe should determine your vote.

Maggie
Chair, Sakai Foundation Board

[David Lassner]

Thanks Maggie - this lays it out clearly.

As hard as I know you and many of our colleagues have worked on the foundations for this merger, it's clear that there's an even more challenging road still ahead for the Sakai projects (CLE and OAE).

My misunderstanding is that I thought of Sakai as both a Project community and a Foundation rather than as a Foundation hosting multiple Project communities that each need to develop their own sustainment model.

best, david