Conflict of Interest Derails UK Government Open Source Consultation

judgecorp writes "The UK government's consultation about the use of open source in public sector IT has been sent back to square one, with discussion results scrapped because the facilitator, Andy Hopkirk, is involved with Microsoft. Hopkirk is well regarded, but the open source community feels the debate dismissed RF (royalty free) standards in favor of the FRAND definition, which is more favorable to proprietary vendors."

Comments

Hopkirk

[Anonymous Coward]

>discussion results scrapped because the facilitator, Andy Hopkirk...
Hands up who expected the next word to be "(deceased)".

Re:Hopkirk

[mwvdlee]

The actual following words were "is involved with Microsoft.".
I guess it's not too far off.

Re:Hopkirk

[yahwotqa]

*raises hand*
I just wonder where Randall is.

Respected, not ethical

[Internal Modem]

According to the post, he may be respected, but has been labeled unethical: "This [relationship with Microsoft] could be seen as a clear conflict of interest and should have been declared by the relevant parties at that meeting."

Re:Respected, not ethical

[Anonymous Coward]

When crap like this is pulled there needs to be a demerit system that now weighs more heavily against the side which was found to behaving unethically. Like Proprietary software has 120 points, Open Source alternatives 119. However, due to the unethical stunt you pulled we award you 50 demerits. So the final score is Open Source 119, Proprietary 70. We will therefore use open source whenever it is feasible.

Re:Respected, not ethical

[rtfa-troll]

When crap like this is pulled there needs to be a demerit system that now weighs more heavily against the side which was found to behaving unethically.

There isn't a point system. However, there's a much more simple thing, and it's actually the law already. Products from companies involved in corruption should be excluded from all governmental contracts for a period of time as happened for example to Boeing in the USA. If Microsoft products were suspended for e.g. 10 years, this would be a salutory lesson for all involved in corruption.

Re:Respected, not ethical

[makomk]

This is basically what Microsoft have always done, though, isn't it? There was even an internal memo describing the usefulness of this particular tactic - quietly getting a Microsoft stooge as the moderator of the discussion - in I think the Halloween documents.

Re:Respected, not ethical

[rtfa-troll]

[Citation Needed]

Citation given

Re:Respected, not ethical

[gstoddart]

He can't be that evil, he has a most impressive white beard.

Bah, so did Saruman. Look how that turned out.

FTFA

[bmo]

"not been paid to specifically write their response to the Open Standards consultation but he is engaged to help them tease out the issues"

Wow, what a bunch of political weasel wording by Hopkirk. It all depends on how "specific" Hopkirk defines "specifically." That's not just mere conflict of interest. That's conflict of interest and then still lying about it.

--
BMO

Re:FTFA

[hey!]

That's not the right way to look at this. You can't call the facilitator having consulted for Microsoft a "conflict of interest" without that applying equally to someone who benefits from the adoption of truly open standards.

The problem here is that Dr. Hopkirk didn't *disclose* his ties to Microsoft. I give Dr. Hopkirk the benefit of the doubt that he attempted to steer the roundtable impartially -- to the best of his knowledge. But he concealed information that was important for *other* people to make an *independent* assessment of his impartiality. That was deceptive.

So the question is who did Dr. Hopkirk deceive, the people he was trying to help, or himself? Surely it must be himself, because had he been thinking clearly he would have anticipated someone connecting the conflict-of-interest dots. Consider this blog entry from Dr. Hopkirk (http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/An-insiders-view-on-the-government-open-standards-consultation):

By way of clarification and noting that I maintain a strict firewall between the different activities I am engaged in ...

Do you find Dr. Hopkirk's claim to have erected firewalls *within his own mind* at all convincing? More to the point would you expect *anyone* concerned with conflict of interest in this case to be reassured by this claim? This statement is so provocatively absurd, that it can only be the product of self-deception. People are prepared to believe all kinds of ridiculous things about themselves, like "my intentions are good, therefore I can do no wrong."

Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked in Local Government IT on an account for a London Borough for over 12 years, both on the client and contractor side.
It seems pretty much mandatory that as much public money as possible spent on IT is funnelled straight to Redmond.
It's therefore not really surprising that they should invite someone strongly connected with Microsoft to discuss Open Source.

Re:Not surprising...

[symbolset]

We all know how committed to maintaining openness and compatibility Microsoft is. For many years their support of free and open systems has been legendary.

a delay is success..

[gl4ss]

and profits in pocket.

not paid specifically to do that, but paid anyways. if he was going to continue to be paid depending on the results would have been the next question to ask.