Apache Software Foundation
- Muellners Foundation
- Anka
This section is undergoing an Update. Please watch this space.
Governance practices and checks for breach of Public Trust:
1.1. Controlled Party Influence on a US registered 501(c)(3) public charity:
What are the open source project lifecycle practices, exercised through the public facing contributions of volunteers(affiliated to private organisations) and through their active role on the PMC of the project?
Have these volunteers made active consistent effort in clarifying their conflict of interest?
Whether or not, the Apache Software Foundation made active consistent effort in clarifying the controlled party influence on the project, used by heavily regulated banking industry?
If no, then what are the possible demerits of Apache way for a financial technology project, consumed by regulated banking entities, which may have led to such bad practices?
Relevant Data:
a. Source: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Graduation+Resolution Mar 12, 2017
PMC affiliation (*indicated chair) | Persons Appointed |
|---|---|
Conflux Technologies (3) The Mifos Initiative (1) *Kuelap Inc (2) Musoni Systems (1) | Vishwas Babu AJ, Edward Cable, Markus Geiss, Sander van der Heijden, Ishan Khanna, Myrle Krantz, Terence Monteiro, Adi Nayaran Raju, Gaurav Saini, Nazeer Hussain Shaik, Jim Jagielski, Michael Vorburger |
b. Source: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Maturity+Evaluation 22 February, 2017
The project is independent from any corporate or organizational influence.
| The committers come mostly from three organizations:
| myrle, sander, gauravsaini03, mage |
Besides Mifos Initiative, below are the listed private organisations;
Kuelap Inc: Company Number 604087474 Source: Kuelap Inc.
Date of Establishment: 9 February 2017
Persons affiliated with this company:
Craig Chelius, Ayuk Etta
Services: Kuelap is the cloud native digital platform for financial services providers. Based on the open source ApacheFineract framework and other open source standards…..
Conflux Technologies; Source: MCA.GOV.IN
Date of Incorporation | 06/12/2010 |
Charge Id | Assets under charge | Charge Amount | Date of Creation | Date of Modification | Status |
| Book debts; Floating charge; Movable property (not being pledge) | 7000000 | 18/11/2016 | - | OPEN |
Services: Provides Core Banking software services at a price, built on components of intellectual property assessed in this case study
3. Musoni Services B.V, (Musoni B.V)Netherlands; Source: https://dutchregistry.nl/company-search/
Date of Establishment: 15-03-2013(20-08-2009)
Services: Provides Core Banking software services at a price, built on components of intellectual property assessed in this case study
Citable records:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Survey+Results+2022+November
https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?fineract
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=91554327
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Jira+Clean+Up
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Quality+Assurance+Meeting+Aug+30%2C+2022
1.2. Intellectual Property Clarifications:
Whether or not, the volunteers(affiliated to private organisations) followed a provision for grievance redressal for IP clarification, during, when and after the already open source licensed Intellectual Property Mifos X was donated from Mifos Foundation to Apache Software Foundation?
Whether or not, the volunteers(affiliated to private organisations), accurately represented project Intellectual Property information in the public facing records, through their active role on the PMC of the project?
1.3. Discrimination against minorities:
Whether or not, the public facing volunteer contributions managed by the PMC follow a diversity, inclusion policy?
If no, does the project governance model actively discriminate against minorities?
What are the open source project lifecycle practices, exercised through the public facing contributions of volunteers(affiliated to private organisations) and through their active role on the PMC of the project, which may have led to such bad practices?
1.4. Concealing facts from Public:
Whether or not, the PMC volunteers(affiliated to private organisations) have actively concealed information, facts and fixtures on the project from the public?
If yes, whether or not, the PMC volunteers(affiliated to private organisations) have acknowledged and made active consistent effort in clarifying the breach of public trust?
If no to this, then what are the possible demerits of Apache Software governance model for a financial technology project, consumed by regulated banking entities, which may have led to such bad practices?
1.5. Directors Culpability in Breach of trust and audit for violation of fiduciary responsibilities:
Whether or not, the Board of Directors of Apache Software Foundation, a 501 c(3) public organisation, taken cognisance of any breach of public trust, if they have become aware of the information or if the information was made public?
2. Security Practices and checks for breach of Public Trust:
Security Vulnerability
Identify Controlling parties, identify consumer stakeholders
Citable Records:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Fineract+Project+Security+Report
3. Financial Reporting Practices and checks for breach of Public Trust:
Financial Sponsorship and Controlled Influence:
Maintained by Muellners Foundation, Denmark