Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Angela-5
I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting
forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source
software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown
group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible
alternatives.

So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully
open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security
package") CRM software
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management). I've
no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS
software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help
with this.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

jmerkey-3
Angela wrote:

>I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting
>forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source
>software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown
>group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible
>alternatives.
>
>So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully
>open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security
>package") CRM software
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management). I've
>no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS
>software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help
>with this.
>
>Angela.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
>
There's several Web based CRM solutions that are open sourced - we use
one at solera -- however, MS has some good windows stuff as well. I'll
dig into the versions and post where we got it from. It's ok for folks
to use whatever they like, and not all open source apps are up standards
or are secure.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Angela-5
On 6/25/06, Angela <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting
> forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source
> software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown
> group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible
> alternatives.
>
> So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully
> open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security
> package") CRM software
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management). I've
> no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS
> software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help
> with this.

Will you also be removing MacOS from Jimmy's laptop, from Brion's G5?
Will we be replacing IOS in our Cisco routers with Linux PCs running
XORP?  The folding at home client that consumes large amounts of the
CPU time on our servers is proprietary as well
(http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=wikimedia%2Eorg).
The hard disks which store our data in our servers have proprietary
firmware too... Much of our donations come through Pay-pal... Yet no
one outside of paypal has access to paypal's source!  I could go on
all day and make hundreds of examples. They'd all by stupid, but so is
an objection about some internal piece of web based management
software.

The fact is that none of these things where we currently use
proprietary software are in the critical path for creating or serving
Wikipedia content, they are infrastructure.

For the same reasons that most of the world should prefer Free
infrastructure we should too, however, we should not forget that the
purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is not "to be an example of Free
Software at all costs".  The use of a quasi-free CRM would not harm
our neighbors, it would increase the prevalence of proprietary file
formats, it would not cause our readers, donors, editors, or even
employees to need to run any more proprietary software on their system
(SugarCRM is web based, like Paypal).

SugarCRM is also, by far, the most open of all the available CRM
packages... Were we not interested in using open software we would be
using something like Blackbaud's The Raiser's Edge which is software
targeted at funddrive management... It's very powerful stuff with the
right tools to operate multi-million-dollar fundraisers. However, it
also would require building a parallel Microsoft infrastructure.

So...
1) We already use proprietary web based software for critical
infrastructure which impacts our donors (we force them to use the
remote proprietary software as well).
2) We already installed and run proprietary software on our servers
(folding at home for example)

3) But you're making a fuss over running a single piece of non-free
web based internal software which will not touch our readers, donors,
or editors... and only touch the staff and perhaps some volunteers in
the same manner that Paypal does. When we already run proprietary
software on our servers.

So why is it that you are making a big deal about CRM, delaying a
critical part of our infrastructure which I suspect we desperately
need, when instead we could be calling out for a better alternative to
Paypal (which not only is non-free but has a public history of
unethical behavior and which costs us a lot of money)?   Or why not
first ask Tim to remove the proprietary electrical power sucking code
he is running on our cluster?

With comments like "Brad and his friends" and non-reality based claims
"Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source software"
you end up looking as contemptuous towards Brad as I am towards
Erik...  Now *that* is shameful.

In any case, if the stupid politics continue on this I'm sure I can
find someone to run SugarCRM on their own equipment and sell Wikimedia
Foundation webbased access to it for a small premium.  Doing so would
make it less open and more costly but when does reality have anything
to do with rhetoric?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Angela-5
I won't comment on the specific question, but on the underlying
Wikimedia policy issue.

The Board can decide the policy for software use by the Foundation.
What would a sensible policy look like? I think an a priori "open
source[*] only" policy is problematic since there are of course areas
where open source software cannot (yet) compete.  For instance, I'm
not aware of a professional open source optical character recognition
(OCR) solution, which is crucial for digitization.

However, we do need to be aware of the risks of proprietary software:
vendor lock-in, company bankruptcy, no code availability for security
auditing, and so on. Aside from that, supporting open source is an
important matter of outside perception for the Foundation.

How about a policy that states:
- when no adequate (as determined by its prospective users) 100% free
software solution for a task can be found, a proprietary solution may
be used.
- such use needs to be reported and documented in a list of
proprietary software used by the Foundation, so that the decision can
be debated and challenged by the community.
- in such cases, a partially proprietary solution is preferable to a
fully proprietary one.
- a migration plan should be made as soon as a realistic fully open
source alternative emerges.
- the Foundation should, within its budget, support the development of
such an alternative.

Does that make sense?

Best,
Erik

[*] Apologies to those who prefer "free software"; I use the terms
interchangeably.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 6/25/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> our neighbors, it would increase the prevalence of proprietary file formats

gah. Would *not*.

> SugarCRM is also, by far, the most open of all the available CRM
> packages...

Available ''full service'' CRM packages.  There a dozens of free
software tools for CRM like tasks.  A piece of paper is an open CRM
tool. We could use Emacs no doubt!  There is a presumption I made in
that statement that we need something more powerful than a blank sheet
of paper or a basic contact book.  If that assumption is correct, my
statement on Sugar is correct.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-3
On 6/25/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I won't comment on the specific question, but on the underlying
> Wikimedia policy issue.
[snip]
> Does that make sense?
>
> Best,
> Erik

I agree with Erik's position here, in general.

I'd like to add is that we should include consideration of two important axes.

1) The influence the software has on the outside world.

    Compare the impact of an internal house keeping app with the
impact of running Microsoft Office and sending out official foundation
documents in Word format. Non-free software solutions should probably
never be used for applications which land on the 'most impacting' side
of the spectrum. For example, we should never make official use of a
proprietary file format for official communication to our editors,
creating a barrier to entry for users of free software, even if there
is no good alternative available.

2) Critically to the critical path of our project's purpose.

   Compare the use of a proprietary software address book in the
office to storing the Wiki content in a proprietary format. This is
the distinction between 'involved with the content' and everything
else.

Various problems will have some position on these axis, for example,
Erik's OCR example is very much involved with the content, but is
almost totally invisible outside of the person using it. A CRM
solution is not involved with the content but has impact on a few more
people, although not widescale impact (Some on foundation staff and
perhaps volunteers; none on general readers, donors, or editors).
Paypal has significant impact on outsiders, but it's outside of the
content critical path (and webbased).
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Angela-5
This seems to me to be just the latest example of
infighting within the WMF becoming a war of attrition
on this list.  By example I mean that no-one should
consider the rest of this message as directed at
Angela particularly.  Everyone is being equally
damaged by these e-mails and it is pointless.
Truthfully it is the WMF that is coming out the loser.
 Is anyone willing to bring up whatever the actual
underlying problems are?  Is there something that can
be done to work these things out and end this sort of
foolishness?  

I don't know how everyone can be talking of bringing
in new outside board members into the sort of
environment which must be producing these sorts of
emails.  If there is as much infighting going on as I
imagine, bringing in an outsider with experience would
likely be the same as handing over control of the
organization to them.  They would just need to play
you guys off one another to do as they like.  


Birgitte SB
who is tired of the signal-to-noise ratio

--- Angela <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his
> friends are putting
> forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's
> reliance on open source
> software. Especially when that decision is being
> taken by some unknown
> group of people with no community or Board
> consultation about possible
> alternatives.
>
> So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some
> open source (fully
> open source, not "can be open source if you don't
> need the security
> package") CRM software
>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management).

> I've
> no doubt that people on this list have contacts in
> the free/OS
> software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those
> contacts to help
> with this.
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

daniwo59
In reply to this post by Angela-5
 
I have to agree with much of what Erik is saying here as well. The key  
statement for me is "there are of course areas where open source software  cannot
(yet) compete." In response the software package being examined is the  most
open of those available which meets the Foundation's specific needs.
 
For those who are not in the know, these needs are threefold: 1) donor  
management, 2) press management, and 3) volunteer management (i.e., building a  
database of volunteers with specific skills and circumstances, who can respond  
to specific tasks, such as a request to interview someone who specializes in  
classical music, or someone who has a flatbed scanner at home). Other needs
will  likely be identified over time as well. We need a package that can handle
all of  the above--the package being examined can do that--and it is generally
open  source. In fact, the propritary part is the privacy component, which
means  that confidential information about donors and volunteers will not be
accessible  to anyone with an internet connection.
 
I do not think it lies within the scope of our mission to provide financial  
support for the development of free software alternatives, but I  generally
accept Erik's other points, particularly that a partially  proprietary solution
is preferable to a fully proprietary one. I would add,  however, that we
should not compromise on the quality of our solutions.
 
Danny
 
In a message dated 6/25/2006 12:58:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

I won't  comment on the specific question, but on the underlying
Wikimedia policy  issue.

The Board can decide the policy for software use by the  Foundation.
What would a sensible policy look like? I think an a priori  "open
source[*] only" policy is problematic since there are of course  areas
where open source software cannot (yet) compete.  For instance,  I'm
not aware of a professional open source optical character  recognition
(OCR) solution, which is crucial for  digitization.

However, we do need to be aware of the risks of  proprietary software:
vendor lock-in, company bankruptcy, no code  availability for security
auditing, and so on. Aside from that, supporting  open source is an
important matter of outside perception for the  Foundation.

How about a policy that states:
- when no adequate (as  determined by its prospective users) 100% free
software solution for a task  can be found, a proprietary solution may
be used.
- such use needs to be  reported and documented in a list of
proprietary software used by the  Foundation, so that the decision can
be debated and challenged by the  community.
- in such cases, a partially proprietary solution is preferable  to a
fully proprietary one.
- a migration plan should be made as soon as  a realistic fully open
source alternative emerges.
- the Foundation  should, within its budget, support the development of
such an  alternative.

Does that make sense?




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

James Hare
Mr. Wool,

I don't care if you use AOL, but such a database would be the best thing
ever. This way, we have people within the foundation that are easily
contactable in the event the Wikimedia Foundations needs... say... a
60-year-old privacy activist. For the record, I have a flatbed scanner that
also functions as a photocopier (color and b&w) and a printer.

On 6/25/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> I have to agree with much of what Erik is saying here as well. The key
> statement for me is "there are of course areas where open source
> software  cannot
> (yet) compete." In response the software package being examined is
> the  most
> open of those available which meets the Foundation's specific needs.
>
> For those who are not in the know, these needs are threefold: 1) donor
> management, 2) press management, and 3) volunteer management (i.e.,
> building a
> database of volunteers with specific skills and circumstances, who can
> respond
> to specific tasks, such as a request to interview someone who specializes
> in
> classical music, or someone who has a flatbed scanner at home). Other
> needs
> will  likely be identified over time as well. We need a package that can
> handle
> all of  the above--the package being examined can do that--and it is
> generally
> open  source. In fact, the propritary part is the privacy component, which
> means  that confidential information about donors and volunteers will not
> be
> accessible  to anyone with an internet connection.
>
> I do not think it lies within the scope of our mission to provide
> financial
> support for the development of free software alternatives, but
> I  generally
> accept Erik's other points, particularly that a partially  proprietary
> solution
> is preferable to a fully proprietary one. I would add,  however, that we
> should not compromise on the quality of our solutions.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 6/25/2006 12:58:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> I won't  comment on the specific question, but on the underlying
> Wikimedia policy  issue.
>
> The Board can decide the policy for software use by the  Foundation.
> What would a sensible policy look like? I think an a priori  "open
> source[*] only" policy is problematic since there are of course  areas
> where open source software cannot (yet) compete.  For instance,  I'm
> not aware of a professional open source optical character  recognition
> (OCR) solution, which is crucial for  digitization.
>
> However, we do need to be aware of the risks of  proprietary software:
> vendor lock-in, company bankruptcy, no code  availability for security
> auditing, and so on. Aside from that, supporting  open source is an
> important matter of outside perception for the  Foundation.
>
> How about a policy that states:
> - when no adequate (as  determined by its prospective users) 100% free
> software solution for a task  can be found, a proprietary solution may
> be used.
> - such use needs to be  reported and documented in a list of
> proprietary software used by the  Foundation, so that the decision can
> be debated and challenged by the  community.
> - in such cases, a partially proprietary solution is preferable  to a
> fully proprietary one.
> - a migration plan should be made as soon as  a realistic fully open
> source alternative emerges.
> - the Foundation  should, within its budget, support the development of
> such an  alternative.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Nathan Carter
In reply to this post by Angela-5


Angela wrote:
> I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting
> forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source
> software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown
> group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible
> alternatives.
>
>
>  
The fact of the matter is what is the foundation's procurement policy?
IMHO WMF should look at open-source stuff first but if it is not
suitable then look at proprietary stuff.
Did you look at sourceforge? I am sure there is some CRM software there.
Cheers,
Nathan.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Brion Vibber
Nathan Carter wrote:
> The fact of the matter is what is the foundation's procurement policy?
> IMHO WMF should look at open-source stuff first but if it is not
> suitable then look at proprietary stuff.
> Did you look at sourceforge? I am sure there is some CRM software there.

Such as: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sugarcrm ?


For this conversation to progress usefully, we need to know the answer to this
question:

What does the proprietary version of SugarCRM Professional support that:
a) the open-source version does not
*and*
b) we actually need
?

If there's something specific, we might have a hope of actually comparing
alternatives. As it is, we've got an experimental internal installation of the
*open-source* SugarCRM for those who would be using it to figure out whether
they can make it do what they need.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Brad Patrick
Fascinating.  I'm reminded of the phrase "speak now or forever hold your
peace."  Must be wedding season.

Other than the handwringing of "there must be something", I haven't received
a single suggestion of a single bit of actual software from anyone, except
one very kind person who humbly suggested another open source package which
was (in her estimation) "most likely inappropriate" but "worth a look?!?".

To restate the issue (just in case anyone wasn't following along)...if you
are aware of an open source / free CRM package that has functionality that
is enterprise-worthy, email me.  The proprietary package to beat, in the
non-profit case at least, is The Raiser's Edge from Blackbaud.  If you have
the link to a package I should be looking at,  email me.

I think it should not surprise anyone that there are *not* dozens of
alternatives which have the capabilities we need.  When it comes to the
simple question "this is the proprietary solution - does anything in the
open source space compare?" and you have pressing business needs that must
be attended to, you do what you have to do.  The fact that a product which
is not perfect but is probably close enough even exists is fantastic.  And,
on philosophical grounds if you are willing to forego the proprietary
solution which actually *does* work to do what you want out of the box, and
consider the  more-open-than-any-other-solution, I would think that would be
seen as a sign of strength and commitment to pushing back, not a sellout of
an (at presently) unattainable ideal.

We just began our testing of the system, which Brion got up and running late
last week (in a matter of a few hours, btw, thx Brion).   We haven't
committed to it at this point, but it is the system to beat, pending our
testing, gap analysis, and fuller discussion with Sugar about the
Professional package offerings.

-B
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Mathias Schindler-2
On 6/26/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We just began our testing of the system, which Brion got up and running late
> last week (in a matter of a few hours, btw, thx Brion).   We haven't
> committed to it at this point, but it is the system to beat, pending our
> testing, gap analysis, and fuller discussion with Sugar about the
> Professional package offerings.

Hi Brad,

thanks to you and Brion for testing it. I would welcome it if it
proves to be usable for our needs. In the meantime, take 5 minutes to
read about the Bitkeeper fiasco if you haven't heard about it already.

As Wikimedia Deutschland e.V faces the same task, I would be happy to
see us share this information and experiences.

Good luck,
Mathias
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by daniwo59
[hidden email] wrote:

> How about a policy that states:
> - when no adequate (as  determined by its prospective users) 100% free
> software solution for a task  can be found, a proprietary solution may
> be used.
> - such use needs to be  reported and documented in a list of
> proprietary software used by the  Foundation, so that the decision can
> be debated and challenged by the  community.
> - in such cases, a partially proprietary solution is preferable  to a
> fully proprietary one.
> - a migration plan should be made as soon as  a realistic fully open
> source alternative emerges.
> - the Foundation  should, within its budget, support the development of
> such an  alternative.
The one thing I would add to this is that in terms of running the actual
website, delivering the actual work to the end user, we should never run
anything other than fully free software.

Running back office operations may in some cases require a tradeoff...
in the case in question, as I understand it so far, SugarCRM is free
software except that the module for security is proprietary.  I have not
done any analysis yet to fully understand the status, so I am just
speaking here of the hypothetical case.

--Jimbo




--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Kurt Jansson
In reply to this post by Brad Patrick
Hi Brad!

> To restate the issue (just in case anyone wasn't following along)...if you
> are aware of an open source / free CRM package that has functionality that
> is enterprise-worthy, email me.

I haven't had the time to take a look at them, but in their latest open source
study the German Fraunhofer Society mentioned - besides SugarCRM - the packages
http://www.opencrx.org/ and http://www.wice.de/ as the only open source CRM
software that can compete with its proprietary competitors.

The German computer magazine c't tested some open source CRM packages (but not
wice) and drew the conclusion, that only SugarCRM and it's spin-off Vtiger are
really usable at the moment. OpenCRX has an impressing feature set but would
lack intuitive usability.
http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/73338

Kurt
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Dirk Riehle-2
In reply to this post by Angela-5
I recommend you also look at a full-blown ERP package like Compiere,
www.compiere.org, whether its CRM package fulfills your needs.

The advantage of Compiere is that it has been around for a while, is
likely to spare you future integration and extension hassles, and did
not have an incident like the SugarCRM vs VTiger shootout yet.

Dirk


At 25.06.2006, Angela wrote:

>I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his friends are putting
>forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source
>software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown
>group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible
>alternatives.
>
>So, I'm asking if people can suggest to Brad some open source (fully
>open source, not "can be open source if you don't need the security
>package") CRM software
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management). I've
>no doubt that people on this list have contacts in the free/OS
>software world, so I'm hoping you can now use those contacts to help
>with this.
>
>Angela.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

Brad Patrick
To follow up on the discussion about the SugarCRM Open vs. Professional:

[snip]


One of the key differentiators between Sugar Open Source and Sugar
Professional is the team security functionality.  With Sugar Open Source,
all users within your Sugar instance can view all records, without any
restrictions.  With Sugar Professional, all records have a field for "Team"
which gives permission for visibility.  You still have the flexibility of
giving full visibility by selecting the Global team, however you can be more
restrictive on sensitive data, such as donor information.

Another key differentiation is that Sugar Professional has reporting
functionalities.  This allows all users to generate reports on any module
they wish.  The data from reports is exportable, and you can also generate
graphical representations of the reports that can be displayed on your
individual "Dashboard".  Sugar Professional reports honor the security set
by teams so each user can only run reports on data they have visibility to.

As for customizations you make that you wish to push back to Sugar Open
Source, the first thing to be aware of is that Sugar Open Source is licensed
under the Sugar Public License which you can view at:
http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php.  Any new
modules you create can be licensed under either the SPL or the commercial
license, as long as you are not modifying existing files.  If you make
modifications to existing files within Sugar Professional (such as layout
changes) and wish to push those to the Sugar Open Source community then you
would need our permission to have those fall under the SPL instead of the
commercial license.  This is something that we would consider; it would just
depend on the type of work was done, and which files were modified.

[/snip]
So, the takeaway from this is that (a) Sugar Open doesn't have any reporting
module at all; (b) the plug in modules for email and document management
only work (presently) under the commercial license (though that may change
in the future); (c) Sugar Open is limited in the zones of security it can
offer based on "role" (y/n access to a particular module) vs. "team" (y/n
data elements within module) level of security present in Pro.  The
hierarchical group security model would work well differentiating volunteers
from staff, access to data for reporting, and so forth.  That seems to make
a lot of sense to us as an organization for our particular needs.

The Sugar Open Source license is the Mozilla Open Source license modified to
cover SugarCRM.  See
http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license-faq.php
.   I like the idea of us developing tools we need and putting it back into
the source tree generally.  We still need to be clear on the requirements.
If it means deploying intially under the Pro license and pushing on the
sugarforge community to free up modules etc. and making the open product
better, I think we satisfy Eloquence's cautionary notes, which apply to any
commercial-where-free-isn't-quite-yet-there software.

The proprietary license is at
https://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/on-premise-eula.html.  (SJ, you ain't
gonna like it.)

Talk amongst yourselves. ;-)

-Brad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

brianw-2
I was asked recently by a client to install an offshoot of SugarCRM
called C3CRM from a Chinese group that was adding the security and
reporting features to their latest beta.  I do not know how complete
either feature is, but it may be worth checking out. The installer is in
Chinese so you will have to have installed SugarCRM once before and view
the fields to understand what each field is for in the installer.

Might be worth a checkout.

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 08:43 -0400, Brad Patrick wrote:

> To follow up on the discussion about the SugarCRM Open vs. Professional:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> One of the key differentiators between Sugar Open Source and Sugar
> Professional is the team security functionality.  With Sugar Open Source,
> all users within your Sugar instance can view all records, without any
> restrictions.  With Sugar Professional, all records have a field for "Team"
> which gives permission for visibility.  You still have the flexibility of
> giving full visibility by selecting the Global team, however you can be more
> restrictive on sensitive data, such as donor information.
>
> Another key differentiation is that Sugar Professional has reporting
> functionalities.  This allows all users to generate reports on any module
> they wish.  The data from reports is exportable, and you can also generate
> graphical representations of the reports that can be displayed on your
> individual "Dashboard".  Sugar Professional reports honor the security set
> by teams so each user can only run reports on data they have visibility to.
>
> As for customizations you make that you wish to push back to Sugar Open
> Source, the first thing to be aware of is that Sugar Open Source is licensed
> under the Sugar Public License which you can view at:
> http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php.  Any new
> modules you create can be licensed under either the SPL or the commercial
> license, as long as you are not modifying existing files.  If you make
> modifications to existing files within Sugar Professional (such as layout
> changes) and wish to push those to the Sugar Open Source community then you
> would need our permission to have those fall under the SPL instead of the
> commercial license.  This is something that we would consider; it would just
> depend on the type of work was done, and which files were modified.
>
> [/snip]
> So, the takeaway from this is that (a) Sugar Open doesn't have any reporting
> module at all; (b) the plug in modules for email and document management
> only work (presently) under the commercial license (though that may change
> in the future); (c) Sugar Open is limited in the zones of security it can
> offer based on "role" (y/n access to a particular module) vs. "team" (y/n
> data elements within module) level of security present in Pro.  The
> hierarchical group security model would work well differentiating volunteers
> from staff, access to data for reporting, and so forth.  That seems to make
> a lot of sense to us as an organization for our particular needs.
>
> The Sugar Open Source license is the Mozilla Open Source license modified to
> cover SugarCRM.  See
> http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license-faq.php
> .   I like the idea of us developing tools we need and putting it back into
> the source tree generally.  We still need to be clear on the requirements.
> If it means deploying intially under the Pro license and pushing on the
> sugarforge community to free up modules etc. and making the open product
> better, I think we satisfy Eloquence's cautionary notes, which apply to any
> commercial-where-free-isn't-quite-yet-there software.
>
> The proprietary license is at
> https://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/on-premise-eula.html.  (SJ, you ain't
> gonna like it.)
>
> Talk amongst yourselves. ;-)
>
> -Brad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

brianw-2
I forgot to add that it has a full English translation package in it so
you won't have to translate the main program. :)

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:24 -0500, Brian Wolfe wrote:

> I was asked recently by a client to install an offshoot of SugarCRM
> called C3CRM from a Chinese group that was adding the security and
> reporting features to their latest beta.  I do not know how complete
> either feature is, but it may be worth checking out. The installer is in
> Chinese so you will have to have installed SugarCRM once before and view
> the fields to understand what each field is for in the installer.
>
> Might be worth a checkout.
>
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 08:43 -0400, Brad Patrick wrote:
> > To follow up on the discussion about the SugarCRM Open vs. Professional:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > One of the key differentiators between Sugar Open Source and Sugar
> > Professional is the team security functionality.  With Sugar Open Source,
> > all users within your Sugar instance can view all records, without any
> > restrictions.  With Sugar Professional, all records have a field for "Team"
> > which gives permission for visibility.  You still have the flexibility of
> > giving full visibility by selecting the Global team, however you can be more
> > restrictive on sensitive data, such as donor information.
> >
> > Another key differentiation is that Sugar Professional has reporting
> > functionalities.  This allows all users to generate reports on any module
> > they wish.  The data from reports is exportable, and you can also generate
> > graphical representations of the reports that can be displayed on your
> > individual "Dashboard".  Sugar Professional reports honor the security set
> > by teams so each user can only run reports on data they have visibility to.
> >
> > As for customizations you make that you wish to push back to Sugar Open
> > Source, the first thing to be aware of is that Sugar Open Source is licensed
> > under the Sugar Public License which you can view at:
> > http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php.  Any new
> > modules you create can be licensed under either the SPL or the commercial
> > license, as long as you are not modifying existing files.  If you make
> > modifications to existing files within Sugar Professional (such as layout
> > changes) and wish to push those to the Sugar Open Source community then you
> > would need our permission to have those fall under the SPL instead of the
> > commercial license.  This is something that we would consider; it would just
> > depend on the type of work was done, and which files were modified.
> >
> > [/snip]
> > So, the takeaway from this is that (a) Sugar Open doesn't have any reporting
> > module at all; (b) the plug in modules for email and document management
> > only work (presently) under the commercial license (though that may change
> > in the future); (c) Sugar Open is limited in the zones of security it can
> > offer based on "role" (y/n access to a particular module) vs. "team" (y/n
> > data elements within module) level of security present in Pro.  The
> > hierarchical group security model would work well differentiating volunteers
> > from staff, access to data for reporting, and so forth.  That seems to make
> > a lot of sense to us as an organization for our particular needs.
> >
> > The Sugar Open Source license is the Mozilla Open Source license modified to
> > cover SugarCRM.  See
> > http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license-faq.php
> > .   I like the idea of us developing tools we need and putting it back into
> > the source tree generally.  We still need to be clear on the requirements.
> > If it means deploying intially under the Pro license and pushing on the
> > sugarforge community to free up modules etc. and making the open product
> > better, I think we satisfy Eloquence's cautionary notes, which apply to any
> > commercial-where-free-isn't-quite-yet-there software.
> >
> > The proprietary license is at
> > https://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/on-premise-eula.html.  (SJ, you ain't
> > gonna like it.)
> >
> > Talk amongst yourselves. ;-)
> >
> > -Brad
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

jmerkey-3

We are currently using vtiger for our open source CRM for Solera
Networks and it's quite excellent.

http://www.vtiger.org


Jeff

 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12