Note the OpenEMR project places this information on the updated wiki at www.open-emr.org/wiki . I no longer have the resources to keep the previous OEMR wiki updated (for several months, I have been keeping the vital pages on that wiki updated as a courtesy), and there are many other pages on the OEMR wiki that are either non-existent or have not been updated in the interim. I suggest either somebody within the OEMR organization keeps that wiki updated or that the decision is made to convert the OEMR wiki to be OEMR-centric (with the OpenEMR content being directed to the www.open-emr.org wiki). If the decision is to make it OEMR-centric, then I would gladly donate time to do this(would take me probably 3-4 hours) since this would avoid user/developer confusion.
I am still offering to donate time to help with making the OEMR wiki OEMR-centric. The OpenEMR content on the OEMR wiki (and website) are becoming very outdated.
This issues caused some confusion for me this past weekend while upgrading to v4.1.0 (5).
A google search for “openemr” returns oemr.org as the first result, which shows patch 3 as the current patch. Although I follow the forums here and was aware of which version is current, I’m afraid unfamiliar users may be directed to outdated updates/patches.
What is the purpose of having two separate websites? I assume they were created by two different users to support the project. Certainly, things would be much more organized if an agreement could be made to maintain only one of these sites.
Sorry; it’s a bit of a mess. These two separate sites have stemmed from fundamental differences in open source project management by the sourceforge project and the oemr organization. And this has then basically been compounded by the fact that I am a prolific documentor and update the open-emr.org site very frequently while the oemr.org site very rarely gets updated. I can likely clean up the OEMR wiki in a couple hours to avoid any confusion; I just need oemr’s permission. I plan to basically direct all OpenEMR specific pages from the OEMR wiki to the open-emr.org wiki and make the OEMR wiki OEMR-centric (with focus on following themes for OEMR organization 1)Subscribe/donate 2)Projects to fund(utilizing the active projects page on the open-emr.org wiki) 3)Rebrand(for vendors) and certification ) along with making the OEMR web site consistent with this. Then the open-emr.org and oemr websites will complement each other and users can utilize OEMR as a mechanism to donate/contribute funds towards specific projects. These are just my quick thoughts and the decision on what to do on the OEMR site will be decided by the OEMR organization (I am not part of this organization).
Would be nice to keep things together for just OEMR. But with the open structure and a minimum of donations and funding it most probable will stay as is, “a wish” to keep the three letters OEM, or the four letters OEMR only available for the OpenEMR project.
As an alternative a suggestion could be to make at least ONE LINK on a very obvious spot, wtih the reasons why a site is available with OEMR info towards each other, with all the official Open-EMR sites, so each site with it’s own specialties and features are linked together.
It is not possible to reserve all available www………OEMR………names with every extension thinkable and be successful in maintaining these, comparable to Google and Yahoo.
Would be nice to keep things together for just OEMR. But with the open structure and a minimum of donations and funding it most probable will stay as is, “a wish” to keep the three letters OEM, or the four letters OEMR only available for the OpenEMR project.
As an alternative a suggestion could be to make at least ONE LINK on a very obvious spot, wtih the reasons why a site is available with OEMR info towards each other, with all the official Open-EMR sites, so each site with it’s own specialties and features are linked together.
It is not possible to reserve all available www………OEMR………names with every extension thinkable and be successful in maintaining these, comparable to Google and Yahoo.
Would be nice to keep things together for just OEMR. But with the open structure and a minimum of donations and funding it most probable will stay as is, “a wish” to keep the three letters OEM, or the four letters OEMR only available for the OpenEMR project.
As an alternative a suggestion could be to make at least ONE LINK on a very obvious spot, wtih the reasons why a site is available with OEMR info towards each other, with all the official Open-EMR sites, so each site with it’s own specialties and features are linked together.
It is not possible to reserve all available www………OEMR………names with every extension thinkable and be successful in maintaining these, comparable to Google and Yahoo.
@ Brady “These are just my quick thoughts and the decision on what to do on the OEMR site will be decided by the OEMR organization (I am not part of this organization).” -Brady
As I recall, Brady, this was your choice.
@blankev and @mcgillcutty Your points are well taken. The organization and relationship of the two organizations, like the open source project itself, are evolving.
This is more confusing than I initially thought. So we’re talking about two separate organizations that are responsible for the maintenance of an open source project? Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of being open source? Shouldn’t the community be a singular entity?
And how would one consider donating? If i choose to donate to the project, will I have to choose an organization to donate to? That puts the end-user in a bit of an awkward position.
I have much respect for ALL of the developers that have contributed to this project. On top of sparking an interest in coding that I never imagined I would have, this project has totally reinvigorated our medical practice. I just hope the division of interests doesn’t compromise the longevity of this project in any way.
@Jack,
I’m not in a position to make any decisions regarding the oemr organization wiki and website.
@mcgillcutty,
Nobody will argue with the statement that the real home of the project is here on sourceforge (this is where all the maintenance, development, discussions, and releases happen). All donations go to the OEMR organization (the donate link on the open-emr.org website is for the OEMR organization). The scope of the sourceforge OpenEMR project website (open-emr.org) is simply the OpenEMR project (see the wiki outline for the pertinent topics), while topics involving donations and the OEMR organization are all redirected to the OEMR organization website. By keeping this narrow scope, the open-emr.org website has progressed very quickly with a huge amount of new wiki material along with integration of social tools that everybody seems to now expect. The site division issues will work themselves out after some time as I expect the sites will complement each other in the future instead of overlapping each other; no need to worry about the longevity of the project.
My only suggestion would be that the distinction between OEMR and the project itself be a bit more clear. The name “OEMR” is similar enough to “OpenEMR” that I just figured it was an abbreviation for a separate domain. It wasn’t until i noticed the outdated download page on the wiki that I read into it a bit more and realized the difference. New, less tech savvy users who are curious about the project can easily be confused and off-put by the number of resources available. If the end-goal is to provide for a seamless transition for those who are interested, why can’t the project be brought together as a single resource?
If OEMR is serving as a governing body for the project, why does it need a separate website? Can the function of OEMR be contained within the same website as the project? Or vice-versa? If the donation links all lead to the same bank account, and the Wikis are to contain the same information, what is the point of multiple contributors doing twice the work? And on top of that, there is the SourceForge page, which makes for three official websites for the project…
oemr.org and open-emr.org need each other. We are codependent in a good way (although in behavioral medicine, codependency is not a favorable diagnosis).
If you would like to have your software from an organization with a smooth and unified exterior, buy commercial software from a company where the CEO makes all the decisions. We believe that the open source process is superior to that, but it is a different model from what many doctors are used to. It is rough around the edges and not as comfortable for the typical risk averse physician. The dirty laundry sometimes is hung on the line for all to see. That used to bother me a lot as I personally eschew conflict, and I feel bad for the effect that the loose association of these entities has on folks like yourself, who are trying to sort things out. But, I also believe that the imperfect democracy that we have forged is going to evolve the best product in its own time and fashion.
I would advise you travel with the project and the not-for-profit for a while to see where we are headed. If the ride is too scary, check out some commercial vendors on the list and leave the driving to them.
Hi Jack and Tony,
May have some time this weekend to do this; just checking if there has been a decision yet (been following your forum thread at http://www.oemr.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=87 ; very cool to see the open discussion).
thanks,
-brady
Brady,
We (OEMR) attempted to have an official online meeting, but we did not get a quorum. So, sadly, We don’t have a decision for you. Use the weekend to write some cool new feature I guess….
-Tony
We attempted this after a large number of people bailed on the conference call ad-hoc meeting. (*Ahem* hi Tony!). It was a last second deal in of itself.
I think that we will need to get some participation as well as structure from here forward. We were always SUPPOSED to use the forum, at very least to post minutes, but that has not been getting done. I think we will carry the agenda on the forum, and then try “official” time periods to try to kick things in the gestalt. These are ad-hoc meetings only anywho. We are due for a real one.
We need to get the agenda properly laid out, as well as items of business for upcoming discussion as posted by other members. Members need to get their proposed projects posted along with funding requirements, justification, and plan. You can’t get funding without projects, and the one project (since ONC) is this mental health thing, which is quite important in it’s own right, but should also serve as a bus for funding infrastructure development. We need participation.
I will have the agenda, some surveys/polls, and other wonderful stuff laid out by COB Sunday in prep for a Tuesday meeting…complete with announcements. If there isn’t anyone in charge (really, there ain’t), and no-body votes, somebody’s got to just DO the little stuff at some point.
The hope is that this type of list can be used for OEMR contributors/members to earmark/vote funding towards what they want.
What would be very helpful to know is the financials of OEMR. For example; sounds like there may be money coming in from re-certification/advertising, so would be very helpful for people who are thinking of joining/participating to know where that money is going (or if there is any money).
