Re: organized labor and OSS?

I think the first argument for FLOSS, for civil servants, is that it
can be improved and maintained through open contracting, without being
maried to a single sevrice provider.
  With proprietary software, there is no open competition for many
government contracts.

  The fact that software is written by employees, or contracted
outside should be irrelevant.  In both cases it is paid by the tax
payer, should give him maximum benefit, and should be improved/adapted
through open contracting that only open-source will permit.

Furthermore, FLOSS allows cooperation between governments
(geographically distincts) leading to more savings for all.

In France, we have an association of local governments, and no so
local ones, just for that purpose.
  google: ADULLACT

Bernard


On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:30:31PM -0500, Meyer, Peter - BLS wrote:
> 
> Aside from being an economic researcher on technological change (very much
> including OSS), I am also a member of a union of employees of the US Dept of
> Labor.  A union committee on computer technology is considering a resolution
> about open source software.  (The resolution would be a nonbinding statement
> of our preferences to inform the union officials and the managers they
> negotiate with.  It wouldn't change the world particularly, but the process
> of discussing it makes it possible to learn something and figure out if
> members have a common position or not, then say so.)  So far neither union
> members nor the IT managers seem to have any objection to OSS in principle,
> although we do not make such transitions quickly because
> centrally-controlled security and standardization are key concerns here.
> 
> Below is the draft text of the resolution.  I'd be interested in anyone's
> view on whether (a) any labor organization anywhere has taken a stance on
> OSS, because I am not aware of any; and (b) the proposed resolution seems
> illogical, unclear, self-contradictory, redundant, etc, because such
> resolutions should themselves improve through an open-source process of
> discussion and learning.  Please know that I am not advocating that you
> approve, disapprove, or take any political stance.  Please write to me
> privately (at [email protected]) unless the response seems to be of
> general interest.
> 
> A note of translation: the word "whereas" is apparently required, and in
> this context means something like "Because".
> 
> -----
> 
> Draft proposal (dated 3 March 2004) for:  A resolution by Local 12 on open
> source software
> 
> 
> Whereas open source software is shared with others, usually on Web sites;
> 
> Whereas government use of open source software, instead of software
> customized only by specialized contractors, gives employees additional
> opportunities to understand, participate in, and improve the software
> technology they use at work;
> 
> Whereas open source software is cheaper to acquire than proprietary
> software;
> 
> Whereas use of open source software allows future government expenditures,
> and the efforts of public employees, on software development to benefit the
> public outside government agencies;
> 
> Whereas some software which has already been written by government employees
> could be useful to others in the public;
> 
> Whereas through the distribution of software written by employees, those
> employees can receive recognition, prestige, and also evaluations of their
> work by outsiders;
> 
> Whereas like some other forward-thinking government authorities, the
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts officially promotes open source and requires
> its agencies to consider open-source and public-sector code sharing in
> determining best-value solutions;
> 
> The membership of AFGE Local 12 calls upon the Department of Labor and its
> agencies to take opportunities to use open source software approaches
> whenever possible, to explicitly justify the alternatives when they are
> taken, and to look for changes to make the source code to existing software
> programs publicly available.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Peter B. Meyer     [email protected]    202-691-5678
> Research Economist, Office of Productivity and Technology
> U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Room 2180
> 2 Massachusetts Avenue N.E., Washington, DC 20212-0001
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://opensource.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/community

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

[email protected]             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX