1. Open Collaboration in an Institutional Context T. Metz, M.J. Mendoza, R. Valerio International Rice Research Institute © IRRI, 2007 This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

2. Generation Challenge Programme Mission: Use plant genetic diversity, advanced genomic science, and comparative biology to develop tools and technologies that help plant breeders in the developing world produce better crop varieties for resource-poor farmers. Structure: –Created in August 2003 –10 year framework in 2 phases (2004-8, 2009-13)

3. GCP Network EMBRAPA Brasilia Brazil CIP Lima Peru CIAT Cali Colombia CIMMYT Mexico City Mexico Cornell University USA Wageningen University Netherlands John Innes Centre Norwich UK CAAS Beijing China NIAS Tsukuba Japan Agropolis Montpellier France IPGRI Rome Italy WARDA Bouaké Cote d’Ivore IRRI Los Baños Philippines ICRISAT Patancheru India ICARDA Aleppo Syria IITA Ibadan Nigeria ACGT Pretoria South Africa ICAR New Delhi India BIOTEC Bangkok Thailand INRA Rabat Morocco CINVESTAV Irapuato Mexico Instituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare Florence Italy 9 CGIAR 6 ARIs 7 NARS Partners Consortium

4. Linking Data and Applications Comparative Map & Trait Viewer (NCGR/ISYS) Genetic Map Data Source(s) Generation Challenge Programme Domain Model & Middleware Germplasm Passport/ Phenotype/ Genotype Querybuilder Comparative (Functional) Genomics Tools DIVA-GIS Germplasm Data Source(s) Genomics Data Source(s) GIS Data Source(s)

5. Open Collaboration Web2.0 - 2004 SourceForge.net –2004: hosting 50.000+ open source collaborative software development projects –2007: 150,000 projects, 1.6 million registered users –http://sourceforge.nethttp://sourceforge.net Wikipedia –2004: containing 300,000 pages in the English language version –2007: 2 million pages in the English version, 7.5 million pages for all languages –http://en.wikipedia.orghttp://en.wikipedia.org

6. CropForge: Source Code Management

7. CropForge: Communication

8. GCPWiki: Workshop Documentation

9. GCPWiki: Best Practices

10. GCPWiki: Online Course

11. CropForge Adoption and Use Total –currently 71 projects and 180 registered users –http://cropforge.orghttp://cropforge.org Pantheon (source code) –4 administrators, 47 developers, 17 months –27,000 source code contributions from 29 developers located in 6 institutions worldwide –4,500 Java code files, 5,800 html documentation files ICIS (communication) –21 team members, 6 institutions worldwide, 31 months –file download (21 files, 200 downloads) –issue trackers (bugs, features, support, 220 issues) –mailing lists (2, 15 messages) –discussion forums (3, 140 posts)

12. Wiki Adoption and Use Wiki siteGCPWikiICISWiki Number of content pages580200 Number of uploaded files (jpg, pdf, ppt)6201,100 Number of page views66,000718,000 Number of page edits15,0007,000 Number of registered users220100 Number of users with one or more edits8294 Number of users with 10 or more edits4226 Read accessclosedopen Months of operation3130

13. Discussion (1) Software/platform selection –Functionality (total vs. required) –Cost (free vs. per-user licensing) –Hosting (integration vs. outside hosting) Funding –Hardware, configuration, user training, user support are the major expenses –Formal project, budget, staff time, etc. recommended

14. Discussion (2) Institutional framework for contributions –IP policy, code of conduct –Publication and quality control procedures –Reward and recognition system Ownership of content (copyright) –Difficult/impossible to separate –Open Content license shifts focus from ownership to freedom to use –Global Public Goods (non-competitive, non-exhaustive)

15. Discussion (3) Transparency and history –Easy to join –Meritocratic –No anonymous use Content scope and quality –Uneven quality, coverage, maintenance –World-visible work-in-progress –Disclaimer

16. Conclusions Successful transfer of Web2.0 platforms from all-voluntary environments into an institutional context. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Institutional framework needs to change in order to make full use of Web2.0 opportunities.