fsfe-uk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] govt standards development contracted out


From: James Heald
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] govt standards development contracted out
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:23:05 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

Well, let's hope they insist on open standards, and full implementations from at least two separate independent providers.


Robin Green wrote:

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:30:51AM +0000, Graham Seaman wrote:

http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2626

Is it just me, or is this the most bizarre thing - if the government contracts out the development of standards to someone like EDS then surely they can define them in such a way as to rule out whoever they chose (in particular, anything but proprietary solutions (eg. 'to comply with the standard software must interact with exchange')). According to the story the ODPM is actually offering the explicit carrot that 'The successful provider would have the opportunity to develop a membership base across local authorities, their partners and suppliers', ie. that this is a license for them to create a closed source of work for them and their chums forever more.


Well, if there are strict regulations that all standards must be based off
of existing open standards[1] (e.g. XML) unless for some reason no existing
standards are "appropriate"; and all new standards must be open standards -
then it might be OK. (To be fair, although _EDS_ aren't the most competent of IT
providers, in general the principle of outsourcing technical work to the private
sector makes some kind of sense, because public sector employers can have
difficulty attracting employees with the range of experience that you might find
at a good private sector IT provider.)

Of course you would have to have a totally independent
expert opinion on whether divergences from existing standards were really
"appropriate", to prevent the "appropriate" thing becoming a massive loophole.
To me it seems obvious that where you have years and years of public spending
potentially affected by a decision you make now, you invest in some reliable,
_independent_ advice to make sure it's the right decision - but I suspect there
are plenty of penny-wise, pound-foolish, and/or corrupt, bean-counters who won't
see it that way.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]