Blog

Research Accelerators Gallery

Research Accelerators Gallery

Research Accelerators Gallery

The Foundation projects are organized under four Galleries: Open Source Gallery Systems Infrastructure and Integration gallery (SIIG)

Research Accelerators Gallery

Innovators Gallery
You may find an Outercurve project that is addressing a technology challenge that is important to you. Projects are only as strong as their community and our project leaders welcome new contributors to their projects. Each project has the flexibility to create its own web site, determine the open source software license that applies to the project, and which forge will host the code.

To contribute, simply navigate to the project home page and contact the project leader. The Foundation has acted to minimize the bureaucracy, and allow porno the project leaders to establish the project management style that fits their project. You will need to sign a contribution agreement for significant contributions, but all of your interaction to get started can happen directly through the project’s web site.

If you have any further questions, please contact the Outercurve Foundation directly.Assigning a project to the Outercurve Foundation provides a number of key benefits. The Foundation acts as a neutral not-for-profit third party encouraging contributions. The IP management practices provided through the Foundation can encourage others to adopt the project. The Foundation also provides a number of other services for the project. Learn more about project services.

While gallery managers are always on the look-out for projects that fit their gallery theme, anyone can submit a proposed project to the Foundation. The process starts with a proposal. Fill out the first page of the Project Proposal form and submit it according to the procedures on proposing projects to the Foundation. Suggest the gallery you believe your project best fits. If the project does not obviously fit into a specific Outercurve gallery, you can still submit your proposal. There may be ways of accommodating the project.

The Foundation will contact you through one of the gallery managers and work with you to complete the project acceptance criteria. The completed form will be submitted to the Board of Directors for review and discussion. The Board can raise a number of questions about the project, but the gallery manager ultimately has the ability to decide on a project.

We understand that choosing to join the Foundation will be a big decision for open source communities and the projects that they represent. All projects that join the Foundation will benefit from the shared resources available to the projects. The Foundation is building a collection of services and best practices from all of the participating projects and providing administrative and infrastructure support to projects and their communities.

A recent project, MVC Contrib, was assigned to the Foundation so that one company did not have to take on the burden of maintaining the IP management of the project, and by assigning the IP to the Foundation other contributors were more willing to participate. Eric Hexter, the project lead provides a full accounting of why they chose to assign the project in a recent interview.

Opensource foundation

Opensource foundation

Opensource foundation

OF BLOGS AND MEN….Dan Drezner poses a good question today: why did CNN news chief Eason Jordan resign following his inflammatory remarks at the Davos conference? Most of this debate is on whether Jordan’s blog-fueled exit is good or bad. For me, there’s another question — did the blogosphere really force him out?

I ask this after reading Ed Morrissey’s timeline of Jordangate in the Weekly Standard. Assuming that Morrissey’s account is accurate (see below), then the media heat on Jordan was never particularly strong — and it was dying down the day before he left CNN. By coincidence, I was chatting with a friend about this just a few hours ago. I went a bit further, though: just how influential is the blogosphere, anyway? Were we really responsible for Trent Lott’s downfall? Dan Rather’s resignation? Keeping the National Guard story alive? Sure, those stories got a ton of play in blogs, but the fact that blogs played them up doesn’t mean they were responsible for what happened afterward.

I don’t have an answer to this, but I have some guesses. Based on several reports I’ve read, I suspect that blogs played a role in the Trent Lott affair, but not as big a role as we think. Blogs just didn’t have that much influence back then, and there were other things going on behind the scenes. Our role in Rathergate was definitely bigger, but in the end I doubt that things would have turned out differently if blogs didn’t exist. The facts were damning no matter where they came from, and other media outlets were all over the story within a few days. Finally, as Dan points out, Eason Jordan’s resignation looks suspiciously like it had nothing to do with the blog storm over his remarks. It’s not clear what really happened there.

I’m a little stumped about all this. It’s pretty obvious that blogs can kick up a big fuss over certain kinds of stories, and it’s also pretty obvious that blogs have a considerable indirect influence by virtue of getting read by a lot of (mostly younger) reporters and Hill staffers who themselves have influence. Beyond that, who knows? Certainly blogs act as a kind of distributed research service for other, more conventional, media outlets, and at times they can also produce pressure of their own.

But how much? I’m not even sure how to ask that question, let alone answer it. Maybe someone smarter than me will tackle it someday. —Kevin Drum 8:25 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (41)
SURVIVOR BLOGGING….I’m temporarily in a nonpolitical mood, so let’s blog about Survivor instead. Everyone loves Survivor, right? First observation: these guys still can’t make fire? How many seasons does this show have to be on the air before the contestants figure out that they should track down a boy scout or something and learn how to do this before the taping starts? Sheesh.

But that’s just a quibble. The real problem is that Survivor is stale. It needs some real surprises, not the flim flammery on display last night. Their idea of a “surprise” on Thursday’s opening episode was the fact that (a) they started with 20 contestants instead of 18, and (b) those 20 contestants were all thrown together into a single tribe for the first day. What a shocker that was. I could hardly stay on my seat.

The primary appeal of Survivor is not the physical surroundings or the number of people on the show or the ethnic or gender makeup of the contestants. The appeal of the show is in the human interaction. How do you keep from being voted off? How do you make and break alliances? Who gets betrayed this week? That’s where they need to throw in a few curveballs. The contestants need to learn that the standard way of forming alliances and screwing competitors is subject to change.

Here’s an example. After the tribes were formed last night there were 18 people left. Suppose it then worked like this: one person wins immunity in a personal immunity challenge and the remaining 17 are then given the rest of the day to break themselves into four groups of four. Those groups are revealed at tribal council with a suitable set of rules that builds suspense and allows for lots of enjoyable last minute backstabbing. At the end, one person is left out and has to go home.

See what happens? Suddenly there’s a new and unexpected way in which alliances have to be formed. All you have to do is find three reliable buddies and you’re safe for the week. Next week, who knows? Maybe it’s three groups of five. Maybe it’s something completely different. Whatever it is, though, the way in which you interact with other tribe members is now entirely different than it has been in past seasons. If you think you have a strategy all worked out, think again. I’m not suggesting things should have worked exactly that way, just that the contestants ought to be surprised with a new twist on the old alliance game. Backstabbing and betrayal are the key to the show, and the producers need to find new ways to make the knife twisting ever bloodier and more traumatizing. The masses are getting restless.

—Kevin Drum 4:35 PM Permalink | TrackBack (2) | Comments (72)
MY KIND OF GUY….Via Sam Heldman, Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lawrence Small is trying to negotiate a community service deal after being convicted of violating a provision of the Endangered Species Act. His proposal? That he spend the time learning more about the act and lobbying Congress to change it. You gotta give him points for originality. And chutzpah.

—Kevin Drum 12:53 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (50)
TECHNOCRACY….This is a bit of an airy topic, but indulge me. Responding to a Jon Chait essay suggesting that liberalism is fundamentally nonideological, Matt Yglesias says: The brand of liberalism Jon is describing is committed to a technocratic version of consequentialism undergirded by some theory of the good. This poses some problems.

One simple problem is that technocratism has a pretty limited political appeal…. Actually, I don’t think that’s true. Local politics, for example, is famously concerned with fixing potholes and keeping the streets safe, issues that are usually framed as matters of competency, not ideology. Local constituents vote for mayors and city planners on this basis all the time.

More to the point, though, liberal technocratism was enormously popular in America for many decades starting with the New Deal. Sure, FDR offered up his own unique brand of liberal American ideology, but he mainly had a vision of government that worked — something that it manifestly didn’t do during the first few years of the Depression. By the time Republicans finally took over after 20 years of Democratic rule, technocratism reigned so supreme that Eisenhower accepted it almost without blinking. His “Modern Republicanism” of 1958 and beyond was explicitly dedicated to solving problems instead of waging ideological wars, and practically everyone fell into lockstep behind this vision. There was a widespread belief — barely remembered today by anyone who wasn’t alive at the time — that the old ideological battles were over, relegated forever to the ash heap of history.

In other words, technocratic liberalism can have enormous public appeal. But there’s a catch: it has to work, and the 60s and 70s were not kind to it. Robert McNamara was the very soul of an efficiency expert and he brought us nothing but the misery of Vietnam. Henry Kissinger was an international realist, but he couldn’t stop the Arabs from embargoing their oil. Jimmy Carter was the ultimate technocrat by both training and temperament, but by the end of his term in office the country suffered from high inflation, high unemployment, a second oil shock, a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and a seemingly endless hostage crisis in Iran. Technocratic liberalism had been transformed into malaise.

So, yes, technocratism has pretty limited political appeal today, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to ever restore its luster. What it needs is someone like FDR, who had the delicate judgment necessary to balance technocratic idealism and experimental risk taking with a hardheaded understanding of American culture that produced programs that — mostly — worked. Bill Clinton almost (but not quite) managed the same trick on a smaller scale. Unfortunately, he had a penchant for risk taking of a different sort.

My guess is that common sense will make a comeback one of these days. The modern Republican party is dedicated to an economic program so wildly out of touch with reality that they really don’t have much choice except to eventually either compromise their ideology (which will cause them to lose elections) or else watch the economy come crashing down on their heads (which will cause them to lose elections). The only real question is: how long will it take?

—Kevin Drum 12:28 PM Permalink | TrackBack (2) | Comments (72)
SOCIAL SECURITY BLUES….The LA Times reports today that Democrats are resolutely opposed to George Bush’s Social Security plans, conservatives are blowing their stacks over the possibility of raising the payroll tax cap, no one wants to talk about benefit cuts, and the public is slowly turning against private accounts. In other words, things aren’t looking good for the prez.

I guess they call it the third rail of American politics for a reason. I continue, though, to think that somewhere there’s a Plan B in the background. Bush has gained a reputation for resoluteness based on his unbending dedication to upper crust tax breaks and military action in Iraq, but as Marshall Wittman points out, he’s happily flip flopped on practically every other policy initiative he’s been associated with. He’s probably willing to do it this time too.

Outercurve Foundation

Outercurve Foundation

Outercurve Foundation

Assigning a project to the Outercurve Foundation provides a number of key benefits. The Foundation acts as a neutral not-for-profit third party encouraging contributions. The IP management practices provided through the Foundation can encourage others to adopt the project. The Foundation also provides a number of other services for the project.  Learn more about project services.

While gallery managers are always on the look-out for projects that fit their gallery theme, anyone can submit a proposed project to the Foundation. The process starts with a proposal. Fill out the first page of the Project Proposal form and submit it according to the procedures on proposing projects to the Foundation. Suggest the gallery you believe your project best fits. If the project does not obviously fit into a specific Outercurve gallery, you can still submit your proposal.  There may be ways of accommodating the project.

The Foundation will contact you through one of the gallery managers and work with you to complete the project acceptance criteria.  The completed form will be submitted to the Board of Directors for review and discussion. The Board can raise a number of questions about the project, but the gallery manager ultimately has the ability to decide on a project.

We understand that choosing to join the Foundation will be a big decision for open source communities and the projects that they represent. All projects that join the Foundation will benefit from the shared resources available to the projects. The Foundation is building a collection of services and best practices from all of the participating projects and providing administrative and infrastructure support to projects and their communities.

A recent project, MVC Contrib, was assigned to the Foundation so that one company did not have to take on the burden of maintaining the IP management of the project, and by assigning the IP to the Foundation other contributors were more willing to participate. Eric Hexter, the project lead provides a full accounting of why they chose to assign the project

—Kevin Drum 12:42 AM Permalink | TrackBack (1) | Comments (149)

February 17, 2005
LARRY SUMMERS LIVE….Harvard has released a transcript of Larry Summers’s infamous talk about women in science, and the funniest part is the very first question:

Q: Well, I don’t want to take up much time because I know other people have questions, so, first of all I’d like to say thank you for your input. It’s very interesting — I noticed it’s being recorded so I hope that we’ll be able to have a copy of it. That would be nice.

LHS: We’ll see. (LAUGHTER) Right. Moving on, here’s probably the key part of his talk: So my best guess, to provoke you, of what’s behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people’s legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them.

Summers clearly says at various points that he’s guessing, that he’s provoking, that he’s not an expert, that he hopes he’s proved wrong, etc. At the same time, he also says very clearly (more than once) that of the three factors he discusses, he thinks socialization and discrimination are probably the least at fault for the low number of women in high-powered science and engineering positions. In response to a skeptical questioner, he also says this:

I don’t presume to have proved any view that I expressed here, but if you think there is proof for an alternative theory, I’d want you to be hesitant about that. I don’t have any special comment on the substance of Summers’s remarks, but at least now we know what he said. You can read the entire transcript, including the Q&A, here.

—Kevin Drum 7:09 PM Permalink | TrackBack (1) | Comments (213)
CATS, DOGS, AND KIDS….I’m a few days late on this, but congrats to Bill Sjostrom on the adoption of his new daughter. I hope she gets along swimmingly with Asta and Mazal.

—Kevin Drum 6:40 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (7)
CHALLENGING UNCLE ALAN….Matt Yglesias says today that he still thinks “Democrats need to mount a clear attack on Greenspan and his long history of double-dealing on Social Security.”

Indeed they do. If you want to know what he’s talking about, may I recommend this post from early last year? It’s short and sweet and was written back before the current Social Security assault began and we all suddenly became experts on bend points, wage indexing, and expected returns on private investments. You may all revel in its earnest naivete.

—Kevin Drum 2:25 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (77)
CALCULATOR CAGE MATCH….Via Josh Marshall, here’s yet another Social Security calculator that helps you understand the joys of private accounts.

Except, um, this one is a little different: it’s from New York senator Chuck Schumer and it’s designed to show how much you’ll lose in traditional benefits under Bush’s plan and how little you’ll gain. Two can play at the calculator game! So let’s compare, shall we? I’m a 46-year old male, and if I plug that into the Cato Institute’s calculator and then enter an annual salary of $40,000, they claim that my private account will pay me $20,034 per year upon retirement, $1,906 more than Social Security would. Not bad! Now let’s try Schumer’s calculator. Plug in 1958 and $40,000 (no choice of gender allowed), and my private account will be worth….$1,866 per year. Sadly, this is offset by a reduction of $3,773 in traditional benefits. Damn.

So who’s right? Schumer explains his assumptions here, and needless to say they’re a wee bit different from Cato’s. He figures a net rate of return of 2.7% instead of Cato’s 4.95%. He assumes retirement at age 65, not 67. He assumes a constant average salary instead of Cato’s endless 4% real growth. He assumes the plan starts in 2009 and contributions are capped at $1,000 per year (plus annual growth) — whereas Cato figures the plan starts now, has a contribution rate of 6.2% of your salary, and completely replaces Social Security. And Schumer assumes that traditional benefits will be cut both by changing the indexing formula and by the “privatization tax” favored by George Bush, which reduces your benefits based on how much money you accumulate in your private account.

So who’s right? Hard to say. Schumer’s 2.7% rate of return, for example, is as needlessly pessimistic as Cato’s 4.95% is needlessly optimistic — although the rest of Schumer’s assumptions seem broadly reasonable (unlike Cato’s, although they’ve changed them a bit since I last wrote about them). Beyond that, what this shows is just how much details matter in any privatization plan. Small differences in wage growth, retirement age, and contribution rates make a very big difference after being compounded for a couple of decades.

In other words, buyer beware. When Democrats complain that Bush hasn’t produced a detailed privatization plan, this is the reason. Without an actual plan on the table, you can dangle pretty much any pot of gold you want in front of future retirees. Once a real plan is put down on paper, though, you can do real calculations and figure out whether it really works. The fact that Bush is so reluctant to do this should certainly make everyone skeptical that his plan is as good as he says it is. Schumer’s calculator makes that abundantly clear.

—Kevin Drum 1:58 PM Permalink | TrackBack (5) | Comments (80)
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST….As near as I can tell, the new position of “director of national intelligence” was rendered pretty close to meaningless after the job was successfully neutered by the Pentagon during congressional negotiations last year. The fact that George Bush’s choice for the job is John Negroponte therefore inspires in me mostly a yawn.

Except for one thing: Negroponte has been ambassador to Iraq for the past seven months and will be leaving Baghadad (and its forthcoming billion dollar embassy!) to take the new job. What’s up with that? It’s hardly plausible the Negroponte was literally the only person Bush could find for the job, so this means that Negroponte must have made it clear that he was anxious to leave.

Not that I blame him, mind you, but we sure do have a hard time finding people willing to spend more than a few months in Iraq, don’t we? If Iraq were really the future garden spot that administration spokesmen keep implying it is, you’d think there would be plenty of heavy hitters anxious to step in and take their place in history as the MacArthur of the Middle East. But apparently not. Food for thought, anyway. On the bright side, maybe this will renew calls for Paul Wolfowitz to take the job, a slice of poetic justice that would surely have broad support on both sides of the aisle. Plus we’re certain to get confirmation hearings for Negroponte in which questioning about death squads will figure prominently. That’s always good for late night TV.

—Kevin Drum 12:30 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (85)
WAL-MART UPDATE….Did Wal-Mart get a sweetheart deal the other day when they agreed to a settlement over charges of violating child labor laws? Or was it just the standard set of conditions imposed in these kinds of cases?

You will be unsurprised to learn that the answer appears to be “sweetheart deal.” Nathan Newman, of course, has the details.

—Kevin Drum 12:49 AM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (61)
RUMSFELDISMS….Donald Rumsfeld, asked about the number of insurgents in Iraq: I am not going to give you a number for it because it’s not my business to do intelligent work. We’ve suspected it all along. (He meant “intelligence.” But read the rest of the article for a blow-by-blow description of Rumsfeld’s Arrogance-o-Thon before Congress on Wednesday.)

—Kevin Drum 12:43 AM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (64)

February 16, 2005
WE….ARE….OUTRAGED!….Howard Dean, speaking to the Democratic Black Caucus on Friday: “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,” Dean asked to laughter. “Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” All the blacks who were actually in the room at the time seemed to get a kick out of Dean’s remark, but today a couple of black Republicans tried to crank up the wheezing old conservative outrage machine one more time over his “racially, insensitive and intolerable remarks.” I shall allow nonwhite conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru to answer them:

Give me a break. Dean is saying, hyperbolically, that there aren’t many blacks or other nonwhites in the Republican party. He’s right. I’ve been to many, many Republican dinners where most nonwhites present have been serving the food. (Or giving the keynote.) If Republicans are bothered when people make that observation, they should try to make it less true.

I especially liked the “or giving the keynote” parenthetical. Way to twist the knife, Ramesh. —Kevin Drum 7:52 PM Permalink | TrackBack (3) | Comments (174)
QUOTING FDR….FDR’s grandson, James Roosevelt, was on Keith Olbermann’s show last night to say that Fox News anchor Brit Hume should offer “a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation” over his deliberate misquoting of FDR’s views on Social Security. I’ve mentioned this before, but since my original post provoked several questions I want to make crystal clear what Hume did. Here is FDR’s exact quote. All I’ve done is add paragraphs for easy reference:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.

Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

In other words, #1 (a temporary program for people who were already retired at the time) would eventually be phased out and replaced by #2, which is the permanent Social Security system we have today. (#3, which FDR didn’t care much about in the first place, never even got enacted in the final bill that created Social Security.) Now here’s what Hume said:

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,” adding that government funding, “ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

By clever truncation of the quotation, he’s trying to make it look like FDR thought #2 (Social Security) should eventually be replaced by #3 (private annuities). FDR neither said nor meant any such thing, and Hume knows it. So why is a major network news anchor allowed to get away with this? This isn’t just a difference of opinion or a matter of Hume’s point of view versus mine. It’s a deliberate misquotation in the service of ideology, and it’s been making the rounds for two weeks now. Does Hume plan to ever apologize and air a retraction?

—Kevin Drum 6:04 PM Permalink | TrackBack (10) | Comments (192)
BLOG….You know, I might have posted a review of Hugh Hewitt’s new book, Blog, but, um, that would have required me to buy a copy first. For some reason, Hugh hasn’t sent me a complimentary copy even though we’re practically neighbors. Ezra Klein, however, apparently got himself a review copy and has commenced reading. Poor Ezra. He’s only gotten through the introduction so far and he already seems to be pondering suicide. Let’s all wish him luck.