[mikekchar]

I haven't had time to read the report in detail, but it appears that the 200% ROI figure is simply derived from the ratio of externally written software to internally written software. So, by writing an open source tool instead of keeping it closed, they got contributions of code that exceeded their own investment. However, this is not actually the main point of the paper, and neither is it the whole picture. For example they discuss sponsoring in-person events and I don't think that kind of cost is accounted for in their ROI figure. Indeed, the paper goes to some effort to explain that the benefit they received goes far beyond the outside contributions of code. I know nothing of the project, but from their description it seems that it was very well run. I'm not sure that we can reasonably assume that they wouldn't get similar results from a well run consortium, for example.

Anyway, it looks like an interesting report and I look forward to reading it in more detail, but I think the headline in the blog-pointer is unwarranted.

[kfogel]

Expenses like conferences (both organizing and sending attendees) are accounted for on the "investment" side of the ledger in this report, FWIW.

(Full disclosure: I'm one of the authors.)

[aaronchall]

This specific article is being criticized for not getting the sources right, and multiple intermediate sources are given, which is best, in your opinion, read the actual paper? Or the first secondary source?