And how would you handle commercial entities willing to share archetypes and not for profit organizations that keep "their" archetypes legacy?
Vriendelijke groet,
Dr. William Goossen
Directeur Results 4 Care BV
+31654614458
Non profits with a free CKM licence would be public not private. This is the github model
Actually GitHub does not care if you are a not-for-profit or not. It is the private repos that are paid-for.
I think it might be quite difficult to define not-for-profit fairly in this environment.
Is Pablo’s training need not-for-profit?
As William says, if I am developing archetypes for a commercial organisation and getting paid for that work but sharing them publicly - is that not-for-profit?
Ian
@Ian, I guess that is what I meant but I explained it wrongly.
GitHub’s free if you’re sharing publicly, and paid-for if you want a private repo. So it wouldn’t matter if for-profit or non-profit, it’s all about whether you’re sharing archetypes or not.
I agree Ian that defining whether openEHR contributor organisations are ‘for-profit’ or ‘not-for-profit’ is a) compicated and b) unhelpful in this context, not to mention being c) divisive when there’s no need to be.
Pablo nailed it when he said that the Git/GitHub model still allows for central curation of a ‘master’ branch - but the process of ‘forking’ a repo, making some changes, and submitting a ‘pull request’ allows for literally anyone to partake in the development process of an open source project. I don’t feel as though we’re at the same point with archetypes though.
M
M
Thanks Marcus.
I agree that the pull request model works well in Git/GitHub and the next release of CKM will support Change requesting and submission of candidate archetypes but that is not the real issue.
Archetypes, templates and termsets are semantic assets, not source code, and (if you want them to be interoperable) need to be managed like APIs or software libraries. Strict real-world versioning (not just git hashes), strict naming, coherent dependency management. That requires specific software support and critically it requires to people to manage the change requests and new proposals in a timely manner
Furthermore, the key challenge in managing change requests to clinical content is, of course, that new requests need to be put before a clinical community which has no understanding of software development.
When the NHS toyed with openEHR several years ago, we worked with Subversion and a wiki - CKM largely grew out of that bad experience 
Just to be clear, I would love to see some sort of collaboration tooling built around Git - it would solve me a lot of problems in working with clients and vendors, and allow the kind of vibrant sharing community that most of us agree is required but that;s a whole different kind of application. I want GitEhr to talk to CKM (and other repo tools) so that I can use archetypes from the CKM space and, of course submit back upwards but trying to do this in one applicationis in my view a mistake.
Hi Ian,
Training is paid so I guess that doesn’t classify as non-for-profit.
But training is just the first step of engagement.
I have a wider view than just training: I want to engage my students (clinicians, nurses, engineers and soft devs) into the knowledge management process, to see it’s value, to taste the tooling without restrictions, and then to formalize the process and continue by themselves, maybe allowing them to create their own projects or just give access to anyone to add artifacts, review and improve them. Also allow more skilled people to jump in and reject changes, approve, etc. This process will generate enough knowledge so software providers can start using the dual model, allow internal developments in hospitals and clinics to happen and be driven by clinicians and clinical knowledge, and they will start a snowball effect. I believe this bottom-up approach will work, and in my experience it does: I’ve been doing openEHR training and dissemination for the last 4 years. Before that, almost nobody knew about openEHR in South America, most thought it was a software 
Now openEHR is at least mentioned on every healthcare informatics event, companies are interested, developers are interested, clinicians are interested. Of course other initiatives also took place, not saying I’m the only one doing this, but one of the openEHR course in spanish was one of the first openEHR-only courses here.
I see we have a lot of momentum, but I alone can move this forward, and IMO improving the KM process, the tools and opening the access to more people will help big time.