bradymiller wrote on Tuesday, August 02, 2011:
Rod and Sam,
I’d be in complete agreement with setting up an OEMR forum here on sourceforge. Now that the project web site is separate from the OEMR web site, they can also set up on OEMR. Just let us know what you want to do.
thanks,
-brady
aethelwulffe wrote on Tuesday, August 02, 2011:
Mongo has a proposal:
Let’s drop the whole subject for a time…say 1 week? This is really unhealthy.
Here are the facts as I see them:
Some folks want a significant improvement in on-line community functionality. As has been demonstrated in the past, this just hasn’t happened. Why? because the site admins (basically two guys) have enough on their hands, and this has not been, and is likely never to be their priority. OK.
Next, the site admins wish to retain control of the “official” sites linked from the navbar within the software. OK. They have themselves been torchbearers for a long while. This is natural and possibly the correct choice, I do not argue the benefits of benevolent despotism. They exist.
This is all fine as I see it.
Other concerned parties: For profit vendors, user organizations, and the OEMR non-profit. Obviously, vendors that contribute have their own networks, resources, and communication methods, as do other users.
OEMR can easily follow that model. Let the project site continue as it has in the past and let’s just drop the subject here on this board. It doesn’t look good. OEMR can do it’s job without bothering the project admins. OEMR should run it’s own site, with it’s own facilities, and function within it’s charter. It can have support forums, development forums etc… This should not bother the site, right? We are not talking about an immediate fork or something. If the new site is truly beneficial and lives up to it’s promise, and the greater number of empowered contributors there produce more and have better relationships due to the democratic structure, then a gradual shift would harm nothing and prevent short term friction. If a new site suddenly proves to have massive support, and the old becomes a ghost town even if it lacks search engine exposure or internal links…well there isn’t much arguing with that. If a new deal site never amounts to anything…well that shows the lack of dedication of it’s proponents, or wrongheaded reasoning. Either way, so long as the mud-slinging and games stop before permanent damage occurs, we will arrive at the right choice.
bradymiller wrote on Tuesday, August 02, 2011:
Hi,
Regarding forums, there is some nice discussion at this thread: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openemr/forums/forum/202506/topic/4630751
If new ‘support forums’ are created, looks like we should consider a method that integrates a traditional forum with mailing
list features. It’s sounds like Art can make this happen with phpbb, which would be a boon for the community; to get these features sound like it may take some time/testing which is well worth it. (note I’m not talking about the OEMR board forum; getting something up for OEMR specific stuff sooner rather than later sounds like a good idea to improve the transparency of OEMR.
-brady
bradymiller wrote on Tuesday, August 02, 2011:
Hi Sam,
Just to clarify the git repo and developer roles:
Here’s a wiki document that was created when we went to git to clarify the role of integrators and other developers:
http://www.openmedsoftware.org/wiki/Repository_work_flow_structure
The reason we only have 4 Integration Developers is because of the harm that can be done if the submitted code is not committed properly (ie. it’s purely a git commit technical issue). Committing properly is very important, because we have three one-way mirrors at github,gitorius and repo.or.cz . So, if a mistake is made in the commit procedure and it then gets mirrored to gihub for instance, would be a disaster (it would cause issues with 90 or so private repos that may not be reversible). Becuase of this, we only have several Integrators. The “Privileged Developers” are basically considered to have commit access (ie. in theory, their code does not have to be reviewed, if they so wish).
Just figured I clarify this,
-Brady
drbowen wrote on Tuesday, August 02, 2011:
Brady,
I think your idea of controlling the quality of submissions with a small group of integrators is in the interest of quality and I am all for that. I didn’t mean to imply anything differently.
In all honesty, while I am listed as a privileged developer, I have not personally submitted any code recently, I kinda inherited this status instead of earning it. (This is a function of my being part of this project for so long). I have thinking about do some bug fixes that have been lying around for quite a while.
Sam Bowen, MD
http://www.oemr.org
jcahn2 wrote on Tuesday, August 02, 2011:
A little preachy, I know you will consider the source.
Mongo: I proposed the “time out” for cooling off about 30 posts back - that didn’t happen. Frankly this stuff is just too damn exciting to the participants to expect that will ever happen. I love reading your posts and hope to get to meet you one day. Come to Sparta and I will teach you horse ferrying and beekeeping for you to add to your CV.
Shameem: Rod says to take potentially inflammatory stuff off-line. I say keep it on line. IMHO it’s healthy for the project to sometimes be contentious. But the temperature of the flame can be lowered, e.g.: Rather than “You are tyrannical”, how about “When I am ignored or taken for granted, when I am altruistic and folks see me as greedy, when I am criticized for behavior that I thought was approved by others, it make me feel that some of you are behaving in a tyrannical manor and this is not good for me or the project.”
Rod: I realize that in so many ways, OpenEMR is your baby. Sting sang about it, “If you love somebody, set them free.” It’s OK to let some other folks (even a bunch of folks) steer the ship for a while. If you hold the wheel too tightly your knuckles will turn white and you’ll get cramps. Things evolve for good reasons which we usually discover post facto. Like the lover that I would have died for 20 years ago - she dumped me and left me suicidal. Now I am so thankful :>) None of us really know what is required of us today for OpenEMR to conquer the world tomorrow.
Brady, Sam, Tony, All: You guys (and Julia) are simply incredible and as I have come to know you through the posts on this forum, I love you all. Surely it is obvious how tightly everyone here is bound to each other. We have common goals and common needs. I don’t think these forums can be stretched to the point of holding hands and singing “Cumbaya” - that would make me puke anyway. Maybe in the commercial world in which we exist we could at least sing, “We shall overcome”. That always put the grandbabies to sleep.
Jack Cahn MD
OEMR board member
Country doctor
bradymiller wrote on Wednesday, August 03, 2011:
Hi,
Secondary to the destructive nature of the recent forum activity, it has become obvious that I should provide a more detailed explanation for the migration of the Openemr Project web site to open-emr.org (or openemr.sourceforge.net):
Last week, OEMR showed a proposal for a new project web site. This was met with concern by the community regarding content, organization, and most importantly, an advertisement. I requested that the site not be used or in any way associated with the OpenEMR project page until a resolution was made by the community and the site was ready. Despite my request, this site was installed as the OpenEMR project page. I then requested they revert back to the previous OpenEMR project page until a resolution was made by the community and the site was ready. These request were both in forums and emails, which were ignored/denied/minimized. Notably, the site is still there with the advertisement since 7/27/11 (note the traffic on that site is about 350 unique visitors per day).
This has brought up two issues:
1. OEMR released a Project web site that is not congruent with the community and have not responded to the communities concerns. Notably, the advertisement still sits on the web site.
2. (Note this is more of a minor issue, but merits mentioning.) OEMR released an ineffectual Project web site. Rather than improve the accessibility of the OpenEMR project, it was disorganized and confusing. A forum was thrown in with no forethought; it appears the forum expert with forethought was disregarded in the optimal choice of forum software. A long advertisement, which did not appear like an advertisement, was stuck on the top/right of the page. Rather than release something that was complete, OEMR released an unfinished product and expected the community to spend their time cleaning it up.
Both of these issues could of been resolved if OEMR created a test site and let the community provide guidance/feedback/support. In my mind there’s only one of two things occurring; either incompetence or lack of care. And, we obviously know OEMR is not incompetent, considering the project is about to get full certification. So, that leads me to assume OEMR doesn’t care much about the OpenEMR Project web page, except of course, for the advertisement income.
Because of the above (primarily issue number 1; ie. refusing to respond to the community), we decided it was in the community’s interest to place the main OpenEMR Project web site into the hands of people (and the community) that care about it and host it from sourceforge. The main OpenEMR Project web site is now hosted from sourceforge at open-emr.org . Although there was only several hours to develop this site(ie. it’s no Van Gogh), please look at the site and see what is executed by people that care about the project web site and the community. Note there is a clear objective, which is to make the OpenEMR project as accessible as possible to both users and developers, along with an appropriate description of and links to the OEMR website. In the spirit of open source, the web site is GPL’d and on github here: http://github.com/bradymiller/website-openemr . This will allow updates by other users or even a complete overhaul, if desired.
The admins are not forking the project, and we would never ever do that. All we did was separate the OpenEMR Project web site from the OEMR board web site. We encourage OEMR to focus on their web site and charter in order to support the OpenEMR project.
Apparently because of this decision, over the last day the admins of this project have been barraged with abusive public posts by OEMR. The disregard of the destructive nature of these posts to the community (and the continued existence of the ad at oemr.org) solidify that the correct decision was made to migrate the OpenEMR project site to open-emr.org , of which it will now stay permanently. (note there is an ongoing discussion in another forum of whether we should use openemr.sourceforge.net instead, but that is unrelated to the main points of this post). I’m purely a volunteer on this project and have not and will never try to make a cent off this project. My motivations in contributing so heavily to this project are that I simply think the success of this project will have a positive impact on health on a global scale. I request that OEMR please stop with these destructive posts and let the OpenEMR community focus on moving OpenEMR forward.
Again, although I’m disappointed we have to deal with this stuff when OpenEMR is about to obtain full certification (a remarkable feat), I’m very optimistic that OpenEMR and OEMR will both continue to move forward in a synergistic manner and positively impact health care on a global scale.
Sincerely,
Brady
drbowen wrote on Wednesday, August 03, 2011:
Brady,
Doesn’t the level of outrage flowing out of so many senior members of this group mean anything to you?
Sam Bowen
sunsetsystems wrote on Wednesday, August 03, 2011:
Sam, when it happens only on a public forum in the absence of serious effort to resolve differences offline, it’s called posturing, not outrage.
jcahn2 wrote on Wednesday, August 03, 2011:
Ahoy Brady,
I ALSO care for the OpenEMR project. It seems to me, there wouldn’t be much use for oemr.org without the project. The pace of events has been quite rapid for both entities recently and my practice is too busy and I am slow, but I DO care. For gosh sake, even our beloved congress showed a capacity for compromise - and they are bottom feeders.
@Rod You have always been an advocate for information sharing ONLINE. I would postulate that flaming is inappropriate and ineffective either online or offline. I believe it is fostered by the technology that we use for communication that insulates us from immediate feedback. Would I be right in saying it would very rarely happen in a phone call/conference call and almost never face to face?
So let’s all pretend when we post that we are sitting around a table looking each other in the eye. Heck, I don’t even know what you all look like. How about if we modify the forum structure, we get some pictures of ourselves by each post instead of that generic?
Jack Cahn MD
OEMR board
bradymiller wrote on Wednesday, August 03, 2011:
Sam,
I have already addressed your question above. Yes, the continued destructive nature of your posts and the lack of regard it projects to the OpenEMR community does mean something to me because as I explained above, I care about the project. This is why I have requested that you please stop the inflammatory threads and posts. I’d be happy to discuss this further via email.
Sincerely,
-Brady
stephen-smith wrote on Thursday, August 04, 2011:
http://www.oemr.org/ doesn’t seem that bad to me. I guess it must have changed, or I am missing the point. There are a couple of place where the line between the OpemEMR community, the OpenEMR product, and the OEMR organization get a little blurry and I’d like to see those difference be very clear and consistent. Consistent branding is very important; KDE has done similar branding. There’s KDE e.v., the non-profit organization that holds ownership of any communal goods and exists to serve KDE; there’s KDE, the community of users and developers that collaborate to produce KDE SC and other software; and there’s KDE SC or the KDE Software Collection, a group of software sharing a release schedule and designed to work together.
Just like KDE e.v. never claims the work of KDE, OEMR needs to be very careful not to claim the work of the OpenEMR community. There is certainly some membership overlap, which is required for OEMR to best serve the OpenEMR community, but there must be a clear line of distinction in role.
As far as donations go, I’d rather see them go to OEMR rather than to whoever currently administrates the SourceForge project. It’s just me being paranoid I’m sure, but I actually trust a collective non-profit with the stated goal of helping the project more than any individual member of the project, at least when to comes to establishing legal ownership of collective goods.
Finally, I have to disagree with the voices that call for divisive issues to be discussed in private. I’ll add my voices to those that say “an open project deserves open communication” and request that even divisive issues be discussed where the community can easily participate. Flamebait and trolling should be avoided, but having the community available to reprimand (or at least remember) instances should deter them. Yes, it might make outside viewers believe the project is divided; that’s not bad when the project *is* divided. There’s plenty of divisive views expressed on the LKML and Debian-Devel, that has mostly served to make those communities stronger. (I hear whispers of a secret kernel mailing list, but Debian tried that out for a while and actively decided against it.)
bradymiller wrote on Thursday, August 04, 2011:
Hi Stephen,
The site has changed over last several days. The open-emr.org site donation button is linked to OEMR, not sourceforge. Very glad to see you back on the forums.
-brady
tmccormi wrote on Thursday, January 05, 2012:
OEMR is the 501c3 we created to help the OpenEMR community any way we could, starting with MU Certification. The splitting/duplication of the websites was not a happy thing, but it is what it is. There has been a nice long, cooling period and Brady has done a great job keeping his open-emr.org website up to date. The OEMR board members are not quite so prolific.
We will be discussing Brady’s offer to help at our next board meeting, generally we all agree that OEMR should focus the things Brady listed. OEMR will never take credit for the contributions/copyrights of the individual community, though some have chosen to assign the copyrights for their own reasons.
-Tony
Secretary of the Board of OEMR