[PLUG] HB2892 Update: Bill Moves Forward!

[Cooper Stevenson]

David,

On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 08:50, David Pool wrote:
> Cooper,
> 
> Can you reconcile your report with the Oregonian's today in the business section 
> titled "Open Source software bill stalls on opposition"?

The General Government Committee dropped HB 2892 from discussion very
abruptly. In fact, I am told that parties attending the discussion came
to the work group conference room and were told at that time that there
would be no work session.

All of these events occurred within an hour of my writing the update.

There is still a chance that this bill will move forward and I'm not
giving up. 

I'll keep you posted.


-Cooper

On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 08:50, David Pool wrote:
> Cooper,
> 
> Can you reconcile your report with the Oregonian's today in the business section 
> titled "Open Source software bill stalls on opposition"? Where they say that the 
>   House General Governement Committee passsed over the bill for discussion?
> 
> What's going on?
> 
> david pool
> 
> Cooper Stevenson wrote:
> > Friends, 
> > 
> > I am pleased to report that the Department of Administrative Services
> > submitted HB 2892's amendments and the Bill is moving forward! 
> > 
> > The leadership at the Information Resource Management arm of DAS, in
> > conjunction with members of Education system and Open Source community,
> > made a good bill even better. 
> > 
> > Specifically, DAS indicated that if the finer points of IT procurement
> > guidelines were placed in the Oregon Statute rather than law, the State
> > could react quickly to the ever-changing technology landscape. 
> > 
> > I find this ideal as it allows the State a greater degree of flexibility
> > while dealing with IT issues that are both complex and fast moving.
> > 
> > On the technological side with regard to Open Source, the leadership at
> > DAS really gets it. Over the past six months, DAS has both evaluated and
> > actively used Open Source in the State's IT infrastructure. Further,
> > they seem to have an awareness for the potential pitfalls with regard to
> > sometimes unreasonable software copyrights, patents, and End User
> > Licence Agreements.
> > 
> > We kept what are perhaps the most critical lines of the bill:
> > 
> >     "(2) For all new software acquisitions, the person or governing body
> >     charged with administering each administrative division of state
> >     government, including every department, division,agency, board or
> >     commission, without regard to the designation given the entity,
> >     shall consider acquiring open source software products in addition
> >     to proprietary software products."
> >     
> > Did we lose the justification piece? Not really. See, as many of you
> > know the idea is to _level_ the playing field, not to exclude
> > proprietary software. If we require justification only in the case of
> > proprietary software, that could potentially push out a vendor simply
> > because Open Source would not require justification for procurement. The
> > truth is that there are justification mechanisms built in to the State
> > procurement process. Currently, a study must be completed before any
> > software purchases over a certain monetary threshold are made. 
> > 
> > I am thoroughly impressed with everyone's efforts on HB 2892. I tell
> > you, when Republicans and Democrats alike sit down in a non-partisan
> > effort for a common goal, it's a good thing. 
> > 
> > The proof is in the pudding. You may find the proposed amendments to
> > HB2892 in PDF format here: 
> > 
> >  http://www.mwvlug.org/legislation/oregon/HB2892_proposed_amendments.pdf
> >     
> > These amendments refer to the PDF version of HB 2892 here:
> > 
> >   http://www.mwvlug.org/legislation/oregon/hb2892.pdf
> > 
> > HB 2892 is scheduled for a committee work session today.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, if the bill passes into law DAS will define, during a public
> > rules process, the terms of "open systems" and "open standards." DAS
> > will hold public hearings and listen to input from the public on these
> > issues. To participate, one should join the "interested persons" mailing
> > list. I will provide details for joining the list upon request.
> > 
> > Also, I understand the opposition is _very_ interested in seeing this
> > bill disappear. It seems they are pressing very hard in their desire to
> > keep the status quo. As I understand it, one of the members of the
> > opposition visited Rep. Barnhart's office and "sternly" said, "make this
> > thing go away."
> > 
> > Let's keep up the support for this bill; we've a long way to go and it's
> > only through your support that this can be a true success!
> > 
> > Finally, I want to thank all of you who have written with your support
> > for our efforts. It really makes a difference.
> > 
> > I'll keep you posted.
> > 
> > 
> > Very Truly Yours,
> > 
> > 
> > Cooper Stevenson
> > MWVLUG Coordinator
> > Em:  cooper at cooper.stevenson.name
> > Www: http://www.mwvlug.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PLUG mailing list
> > PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>