As long as we’re on the subject of changes to open source LMS models . . .
Moodle is in the midst of releasing a fairly significant change to the community with a new not-for-profit entity called the Moodle Association. The idea is to get end users more directly involved in setting the product roadmap, as explained by Martin Dougiamas in this discussion thread and in his recent keynotes (the one below from early March in Germany).
[After describing new and upcoming features] So that’s the things we have going now, but going back to this – this is the roadmap. Most people agree those things are pretty important right now. That list came from mostly me, getting feedback from many, many, many places. We’ve got the Moots, we’ve got the tracker, we’ve got the community, we’ve got Moodle partners who have many clients (and they collect a lot of feedback from their paying clients). We have all of that, and somehow my job is to synthesize all of that into a roadmap for 30 people to work on. It’s not ideal because there’s a lot, a lot of stuff going on in the community.
So I’m trying to improve that, and one of the things – this is a new thing that we’re starting – is a Moodle Association. And this will be starting in a couple of months, maybe 3 or 4 months. It will be at moodleassociation.org, and it’s a full association. It’s a separate legal organization, and it’s at arm’s length from Moodle [HQ, the private company that develops Moodle Core]. It’s for end users of Moodle to become members, and to work together to decide what the roadmap should be. At least part of the roadmap, because there will be other input, too. A large proportion, I hope, will be driven by the Moodle Association.
They’ll become members, sign up, put money every year into the pot, and then the working groups in there will be created according to what the brainstorming sessions work out, what’s important, create working groups around those important things, work together on what the specifications of that thing should be, and then use the money to pay for that development, to pay us (Moodle HQ), to make that stuff.
It’s our job to train developers, to keep the organization of the coding and review processes, but the Moodle Association is telling us “work on this, work on that”. I think we’ll become a more cohesive community with the community driving a lot of the Moodle future.
I’m very excited about this, and I want to see this be a model of development for open source. Some other projects have something like this thing already, but I think we can do it better.
In the forum, Martin shared two slides on the funding model. The before model:
The model after:
One obvious change is that Moodle partners (companies like Blackboard / Moodlerooms, RemoteLearner, etc) will no longer be the primary input to development of core Moodle. This part is significant, especially as Blackboard became the largest contributing member of Moodle with its acquisition of Moodlerooms in 2012. This situation became more important after Blackboard also bought Remote-Learner UK this year. It’s worth noting that Martin Dougiamas, founder of Moodle, was on the board of Remote-Learner parent company in 2014 but not this year.
A less obvious change, however, is that the user community – largely composed of schools and individuals using Moodle for free – has to contend with another pay-for-play source of direction. End users can pay to join the association, and the clear message is that this is the best way to have input. In a slide shown at the recent iMoot conference and shared at MoodleNews, the membership for the association was called out more clearly.
What will this change do to the Moodle community? We have already seen the huge changes to the Kuali open source community caused by the creation of KualiCo. While the Moodle Association is not as big of a change, I cannot imagine that it won’t affect the commercial partners.
There are already grumblings from the Moodle end user community (labeled as Moodle.org, as this is where you can download code for free), as indicated by the discussion forum started just a month ago.
I’m interested to note that Moodle.org inhabitants are not a ‘key stakeholder’, but maybe when you say ‘completely separate from these forums and the tracker’ it is understandable. Maybe with the diagram dealing only with the money connection, not the ideas connection, if you want this to ‘work’ then you need to talk to people with $$. ie key = has money.
I’ll be interested how the priorities choice works: do you get your say dependent on how much money you put in?
This to me is the critical issue with the future.
Based on MoodleNews coverage of the iMoot keynote, the answer to this question is that the say is dependent on money.
Additionally, there will be levels of membership based on the amount you contribute. The goal is to embrace as many individuals from the community but also to provide a sliding scale of membership tiers so that larger organizations, like a university, large business, or non-Moodle Partner with vested interested in Moodle, (which previously could only contribute through the Moodle Partner arrangement, if at all) can be members for much larger annual sums (such as AU$10k).
The levels will provide votes based on dollars contributed (potentially on a 1 annual dollar contributed = 1 vote).
This is why I use the phrase “pay-for-play”. And a final thought – why is it so hard to get public information (slides, videos, etc) from the Moodle meetings? The community would benefit from more openness.
Update 6/10: Corrected statement that Martin Dougiamas was on the Remote Learner board in 2014 but not in 2015.
pmasson says
Martin and the Moodle community have a well earned reputation for being smart, thoughtful and well-intentioned within open source communities and projects/software. I haven’t worked with the Moodle community for a while, but I can understand it if many of Moodle’s core users and developers who found, and fell in love with, Moodle due to it’s emphasis on teaching and learning tools are feeling a bit pinched by larger schools and partners who are dedicating their efforts to “enterprise” development issues (e.g. SIS, LTI, IdM, etc.). If you’re a small contributor with a cool new feature for a small tool, can you raise a voice to draw attention to it and find others who might also like/want it?
The association might be an attempt to give these folks a voice–although the membership fees might prove a barrier. I just am guessing Moodle is trying to empower the community who might not be represented by those who have gained more influence with the road map (please note, I am not stating that currently there is undo influence by partners). What means are currently available for the community to identify, develop and direct development that carries the same weight?
To be honest, when I first heard about the association, I was hopeful that it would be a non-profit set up as the Foundation for Moodle’s IP (Moodle copyright). One of the concerns I have is that the copyright for Moodle is held by one person/private company. Again, Martin and Moodle Pty Ltd have proven their open source chops to me over and over again and I trust he/they will continue to put the project an community first (indeed this move could be evidence of that), but at the end of the day it does require trust, and recent developments with Kuali have me double checking many things (although Kuali was managed by a foundation, so there!).
I’ll be very curious to learn more and of course, only wish the Moodle community the best.
Phil Hill says
Well stated. Like you (as might be evident by post), I think there are good intentions here but am concerned with pay-for-play barrier, or at least perception.
Martin Dougiamas says
Hi guys,
We’re still working hard to launch the Moodle Association formally, but since it was my initiative in the first place I can clear up a few things here. 🙂
1) It’s completely unlike and unrelated to Kuali. If anything we are moving in the opposite direction, to give some direct control of the roadmap to the community and less to my company Moodle Pty Ltd. There are also NO changes to software licenses anywhere, and no changes to things that exist already.
2) The slides you’ve shown are just about $$. As I often jokingly say, “Software should always be Free, but people should never be free” 🙂 . Development costs money because developers need salaries, no matter what the license is. All projects need some kind of funding.
3) Moodle Partners are not primary drivers of our roadmap, even now. They obviously do (and will continue to) have important input on the process (driven by their clients), but we (Moodle Pty Ltd) take input (wishes, ideas and code) from the whole community. The Partners, through their royalties, enable us to do that through the many mechanisms that we maintain and develop on moodle.org. A lot of the stuff we integrate in every release is directly from the community and this will not change.
4) Moodle is a modular learning platform, and there are many ways to “play” currently by writing plugins (as is shown not very clearly maybe on those slides). http://moodle.org/plugins shows our 1051 plugins from 718 devs with over 8 million downloads. None of this is changing either, in fact it is continuously increasing and improving as we grow our core systems to manage it all.
5) This new Association is totally focussed on providing a new and additional way for our users to “club together” to define core roadmap items AND fund them so that they have a sure chance of success. It’s about efficiency and community. I’d call it a crowdfunding model (although it’s different/better than Kickstarter etc because the people voting also get to define the projects).
Thanks for the article, it’ll help us refine our core messaging on moodleassociation.org when it launches because we really want things to be clear and good.
Cheers, please wish us well.
Martin
Phil Hill says
Martin,
Thanks for the reply. While I understand that these two slides are $$ financial in nature, they include “Moodle Core” which is not a financial entity. In my mind, this implies that Moodle partners are primary drivers of core. Might be worth having a similar set of slides on key drivers for product roadmap to capture your points.