Great job, team! You did a lot of research, and your paper seems very professional.

The first thing I would work on is getting more sources. Five is a good amount, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should have more. With only five, your paper may seem a little bias.

There are a few mistakes when it comes to citing. You only need to quote him.

A formatting issue you may want to consider is putting the exec summary on the title page. This is where it should be. It makes your paper look more professional. Along with that, it allows readers to decide whether or not they want to read your paper right away.

I, like many of the other reviewers, am glad you moved your case study to the end. It seems more appropriate there. Good job!

Your information seems to fit your title and subtitles. It seems to be in an appropriate order as well.

Your flow and voice are great. Your paper is very good overall; it seems well ordered and researched. Great job!!

Laura Corwin

After reading your second draft, I noticed all the time and effort your group has put into revising this paper. It definately shows...good job!

Here are a few things I noticed that might need to be changed before your final draft:

*there are two 'thus fars' in the exe summary. There only needs to be one.

*Where it reads,"Dan Kegel states,...." It is also cited with (Kegel). This is not needed since you wrote who stated what's in quotes.

*In the introduction, a new paragraph can be started at "Open Source is not uncommon..."

*I noticed there are more citations than last time, however there still isn't a lot. I think there should be more since this isn't a very common topic.

*I like how you moved the case study to the end. It fits much better here.

*I like how the intro and conclusion were condensed. The same point is made but in fewer words.

Again, good job on the revision! Only a few more things to fix and it's ready for the final submission.

After reading the white paper's second draft, I noticed certain changes that I recommended regarding the first draft.

First off, the introduction and the executive summary were reduced in the word count which is important. I think that your group removed the content that was not needed. This is helpful for the reader because they do not have to re-read information or information that may not be very useful.

The second point that I stressed regarding the fist revision was the sources. The second draft does have more sources cited, but each section only contains a small amount of citations, maybe one or two. Just be sure to check to make sure that you used your sources correctly. There are two sections that do not contain any citations.

Lastly, another comment regarding the citations. Your group has two different sources by the same author (Kegel). In the citations in the paper, it does not distinguish which source you are referring to. Make it clear that you are able to tell from the citation which source you are talking about.

Other than that, I think your white paper is very good. I think the information stated is good and you cut your word count down, which is important. The only thing that I see that needs work would be the sources again. Other than that, your group did a good job revising your white paper. Well done!

Adam Macek

Review of Second Draft

• In the first paragraph, summary, take out one of the “thus far” s. It’s repetitive to have them both.
• Break up the paragraphs a bit more, some can be a bit long. For example the second paragraph of the introduction. This could be at least 2 paragraphs.
• I like the subheadings ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’. They make the content organized and easy to follow.
• Don’t start the conclusion’s first sentence with ‘because’. I think it’s a rule never to begin a sentence with the word ‘because’.
• Overall the paper looks and reads well. Good job shortening it while keeping the overall message the same.

Overall the structure of you paper i great. I think your paper flows together and things are easy to find. I think your most important section is about the target market of open source. You do a good job in this section.

I understand what open source and how it applies to universities. YOu did a good job on your paper and I do not have any recommendation on how to change it. I honestly think you did a good job!

• The organization of the paper overall is good. It is easy to understand what each topic will cover. One improvement would be to break up the content into smaller paragraphs. The overall order of the topics is logical.

• The section on the target market of open source may not be necessary. Another section is the one on how open source is marketed in general but definitely keep the section on how it is marketed to universities.

• The case study is a good example of open source in universities, try to tie it in and relate it to the main topic a bit more.

• ‘When assistance is provided, students will not be as apprehensive about using this new technology.’
• “ In time the failures of open source will be overcome by its successes, and it will emerge as a widespread technology.”

These statements are an opinion of the author the way they are presented.

• I did not note any problems with the paper fitting the genre.

Overall I think the organization is logical and fits the title. You may expand more on marketing specifically to universities. Another suggestion would be to integrate the case study into the topic more. This might be accomplished by using changing it’s location in the paper and briefly explaining the relation.

Great job on the white paper! It was informative and very clear. Here are some things you might consider when you revise.

1. Perhaps put the executive summary on the title page. I believe that is where it is supposed to you. It was extremely informative, but you might want to consider reducing it by about half. You may also want to make How OS Is Marketed and Marketed to Universities into one section. It seems a little redundant.

2. Obviously marketing is your key point in this paper. You have successfully utilized your information on it through the different sections of the paper. The least important thing in your paper is your intro and exec summary, as you have heard from everyone. Just reduce it a bit so it's not so dominant.

3. You seem to know your topic very well, but it appears you use a limited amount of sources. You might want to find more sources so the paper does not seem biased.

4. You did a great job citing your sources rather than using personal opinions. Make sure this stays uniform throughout the paper.

5. The format looks great other than just putting your exec summary on your title page. :)

6. Just keep making sure you cite everything. It's really important that you give credit where credit is due.

I really enjoyed your paper. It helped clarify things for me. Your information was obviously researched and it flows great!

Laura Corwin

I would like to start off by saying great job. Your group has put much time and research into this first draft and it shows. So here is what I think MIGHT need some changes.
1. I do think that the paper is overall organized well. However, I do feel that the executive summary and introduction can be cut down in length. Only state the really important issues within these sections and this will also help make the word requirement for next time. =)
2. I feel the sections about why Open Source is successful or not are of great importance. I also feel the same way about how Open Source Software is marketed to universities. These should be the main paragraphs of your paper since that's what I get from your title. Therefore add to them, but you can reduce the others.
3. Your paper was very easy to read, which to me, is great. I wasn't stumbling over words or not knowing their meaning. Like mentioned before, try to add more to the section on 'how open source is marketed to universities,' and what can be done about it.
4. I don't think this paper is opinion based. It shows the time and research you put into it. Very professional!
5. The paper fits the white paper genre and follows the ‘rules.’
6. Citation is done well. However, are you supposed to list the year with the author’s last name? I'm not too sure, but check this out and make sure you don't need to add that.
**Again, really good first draft. I think if you concentrate on reducing the executive and introduction paragraphs, and add to those of the greatest important (the reason for writing the paper), things should come along great. Redundant but I would like to see more of how it’s marketed to universities and the academic world, and why most don't even know it exists.

Overall, your white paper is very informative and you guys did a great job in researching the subject. Here are the things that I noticed when going through your white paper.

1. The overall structure of that paper is fairly good. I would first start off by reducing the lenght of the executive summary and the introduction. These are a little too long for the white paper. The flow of the white paper is good. I would consider relating your case study more with the use of open source in universities. You may want to change the position of the case study in the white paper, starting off with the success of open source.

2. I think that the topic of marketing is a very key point in your white paper. This is a topic that your group really wants to emphasize. As before, I would suggest reducing your summary and your introduction. If you also needed to reduce another topic, I would try and reduce the unsuccessful part of open source. The vibe I get from reading is that open source should be and will be used amoung universities more and more. Therefore, the unsuccessful section does not really emphasize key points in your white paper.

3. I feel that your group did a great job in explaining certain topics. You can tell that your group researched the topic very well and your group understood what you were trying to get across.

4. For the most part, all the information seems to come from resources. It does not seem like there are opinoins stated throughout the paper. To help the reader with this, there are many paragraphs that do not have sources cited. You may want to go back and credit information to the authors. This will then stop the reader from thinking that the paper contains lots of opinoins.

5. The white paper seems to fit the white paper genre very well. Your group has seemed to follow the guidelines for creating a white paper. The overall format of the paper looks good.

6. As before, you may want to go back and add citations to certain information. There were some paragraphs that cited sources well, while others did not contain any cited sources. This is important because your group does not want to be criticized with plagarism.

Overall, your group has a great start to the white paper. Continue to revise your paper and it will be a great one.

Adam Macek

Brad, Carey, Andrea:
Here are my thoughts about your paper.
1. Executive Summary-Looks good
2.Introduction- It needs to be cut down into a smaller paragraph. You should only leave the important things and cut out the rest. You might also consider two paragraphs because the one is rather long.
3.Case Study- The second paragraph doesn't flow to well w/ the first paragraph in that section. I would condense it all into one paragraph and cut some of it out. Try to revise your wording in this paragraph too. It doesn't go together well.
4.Why open source is successful or unsuccessful
a. successful- the second paragraph doesn't make sense. it is a great fact point, but doesn't fit the other paragraphs in this section. I would try to do a little rewording in your first paragraph and add this fact in there.
B.unsuccessful-again try to condense your wording
5. Open source's target market-this is a great section keep it!
6. How is open source software marketed?-it is good the only thing I would suggest is trying to cut out some of the unnecessary wording.
7.How is open source marketed to universities?- these two supporting paragraphs under this title are great information but doesn't seem to fit w/ this title. I didn't notice any explanation of how open source markets it's self to these listed universities.-I would think of a new title or cut out this section.
8.THe start of open source in an academic system-It is a repeat of the security you were talking about up in the Successful section. Try either putting all in the successful section or putting all in this section. I do think this is a great point/topic for you paper.

Your sections are in logical order. I hope this helps you revise your paper. I would like to tell you your white paper is good. It is very informative and you can tell you did your research!

Elisa Rensberger

Here's a link to a brand new article (published yesterday) about the recent merger between Blackboard and WebCT. While the story is about those two proprietary systems used by so many universities, there are implications for open source at universities as well. There are, for example, some open source systems that some universities have begun to adopt and that seem to work well for students and instructors. The "Sakai" project is one of those. Drupal (which you're using now) is another. Universities have invested millions of dollars in this kind of technology, so the stakes are pretty high.

See Inside Higher Education:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/17/blackboard

If you haven't yet looked at the Sakai project, go here:

http://www.sakaiproject.org/

Dave