Opensource government
Download as PPTX, PDF2 likes820 views
This document discusses Bulgaria's Electronic Governance Act which mandates that all new custom-built government software be open source and developed in a public repository. The goals are to increase transparency, quality, and cost-effectiveness of government software projects while reducing vendor lock-in. Potential issues that could arise include a lack of enforcement, companies developing software privately instead of publicly, and certain agencies claiming the law does not apply to them. Overall it is still too early to say whether the approach will be successful, but sharing experience with other countries' open source policies provides optimism.
Opensource government
- 1. Open source - accelerating e-government: the Bulgarian electronic governance act Bozhidar Bozhanov Adviser to the political cabinet of the deputy prime minister for coalition policy and public administration and minister of interior
- 2. ● Senior software engineer and architect ● http://techblog.bozho.net ● Adviser to the deputy primer minister of Bulgaria about e- government, open data & technology ● Realistic idealist About me
- 3. “You can’t make the ladies behind the desks use LibreOffice and Linux!! Open Source for the Government??
- 4. You can, but that’s a different story... It’s not about Linux...
- 5. ● The government is constantly procuring both specific and generic software ● The government ignores the “rule” o if the problem is widespread - use open source software o if the problem is rare - use an existing commercial solution o if the problem is unique - order a new piece of software ● The government doesn’t have the personnel to adapt and implement even ready-to-use open source projects. Custom software
- 6. ● Vendor lock-in ● Abandonware ● Low-quality software ● Bugs and security holes o egov.bg o (forest) logging registry (?the_wife_of_my_cousin=1) o ...who knows what else? ● Most of that software is owned by the government o ...and sits on CDs in basements ● Even projects using WordPress, Drupal, Joomla are de-facto closed source ● Questionable, opaque spending Status quo
- 7. ● Websites of ministries/agencies/municipalities/programmes ● Registries ● General clerk software ● Specific information systems ● Accountancy software ● egov - middleware, registries, portal, e-services Types of government software
- 8. ● what’s the relation between “government software” and “electronic governance”? ● The problems of electronic governance o Lacl of coordination o Lack of quality o Lack of vision Electronic governance
- 9. (almost) all new projects must be open-sourced A solution?
- 10. We proposed article 58a, which mandates: • All new custom-built software to be open source • Developed in a public repository from day 1 The electronic governance act
- 11. ● Reusability ● Higher quality ● Easier extension and support o from a government “system integrator” o from other companies o from NGOs and even citizens ● Transparency o What did the government spend the money on o “but...nobody will be watching those projects!” - there are people that will be watching them, don’t worry :) Why?
- 12. ● UK- http://github.com/alphagov (330 projects) ● US - http://www.govcode.org/ (2000 projects); Federal source code policy ● Estonia - e-voting, egov, X-Road o “All our key projects become open source, including the systems for health care, police, business portals and document exchange” Siim Sikkut, ICT Policy Adviser ● Switzerland ● The European Commission ● European Parliament called for “the systematic replacement of proprietary software by auditable and verifiable open-source software in all the EU institutions, and for the introduction of a mandatory open-source-selection criterion in all future ICT procurement procedures” Experience around the world
- 13. ● Every company, implementing software ordered by the government uses a public repo o must use it actively (and not just synchronize an internal repo with it) o git or mercurial ● Public documentation ● Stable master ● The licence used must be approved by FSF or OSI o EUPL by default. Allowed: GPLv3, AGPL, Apache, MIT, etc. Procedure
- 14. ● no difference for the company writing the software - even now the product is owned by the government in most cases ● no difference for the government - 10 lines more in the technical specification. o and we prepared a template for that ● total cost of ownership is the same in the worst case ● new business models Why would that work?
- 15. “Are you listening to yourself, the government can’t open their systems?!”
- 16. ● Only the source is publicly available; not the server passwords ● A small portion of the government software is highly critical; a small portion even have a publically-facing interface. o The law doesn’t apply to systems regarding national security and classified information ● WordPress is more secure than any website that any company will build. ● Open-source software is more secure o ...except for openssl, bash and small, unpopular projects … :) Security
- 17. ● not applicable to existing closed-sourced software ● good code != good software ● not every project can be monitored carefully by society ● won’t solve the problems of e-governance, coordination, corruption ● can see opposition in the face of malicious companies No silver bullet...
- 18. ● Proprietary components? o Allowed ● Entire proprietary systems or proprietary base? o Allowed, but must prove TCO will be lower ● Does it mean the database can’t be Oracle / MS SQL Server? o No. ● Will we switch to Linux and LibreOffice o No – a lot of migration required – desktop software, ActiveDirectory, trainings o But we will switch to ODF Typical questions
- 19. ● The amendments to to the electronic governance acts passed and are in force! ● We have set up an agency to oversee the process ● We have prepared templates and answers to regular questions ● http://github.com/governmentbg o Soon – an on-premise system, mirrored to GitHub ● EU programs explicitly require open source So far...
- 20. ● Administration not knowing they should do it o We already have tenders that do not conform with the law o We have prepared templates and answers to regular questions ● No responsible body for enforcement o We have set up an agency to oversee the process, not yet operational ● Companies may develop “privately” and push at the end o http://github.com/governmentbg , soon – an on-premise system, mirrored to GitHub ● It can be ignored o “No open source – no funding” works (EU programs explicitly require open source) Potential issues
- 21. ● Put it in the law ● Be explicit that it applies to all projects (websites, registers, information systems) o “It does not apply to us” phenomenon ● Find or create a responsible body ● Also put it as a prerequisite for funding ● Talk ● Answer questions Advice
- 22. ● Too early to say ● Depends on willingness to enforce ● I will share our experience within a year Will it work?
- 23. Open and transparent projects should bring better quality and lower TCO
- 24. (image taken from http://exequiel09.github.io/symposium-presentation/) Questions?