World Grows Wide

I wrote this article several months ago for the Australian Philanthropy journal edition themed “Doing Philanthropy Differently“. Looking at a selection of the discourse on “philanthropy 2.0″ that’s out there in the blogosphere, I wrote a piece questioning its relevance to the behind-the-scenes activities of grantmakers (in Australia in particular). The audience of Australian Philanthropy are Australian grantmakers (trusts, foundations, corporates and individuals).

A number of the ideas within the article first appeared in my PhilanthropyTech vs. NPTech Brainstorming post. The original piece I wrote had to be cut down for space reasons, though you can find the ‘abridged’ version that appeared in the hard copy here on the PhilanthropyWiki. Here I have posted the full version, including hyperlinks.

Continue Reading »

Following ConnectingUp I decided to try and use Facebook for more professional networking and whatnot rather than solely what I was already using it for - keeping tabs on people I went to school with. I have since been fiddling around with my settings (trying to set it so they notify me of things I’m actually interested in, like activities in groups I’m a part of, rather than the slew of vapid applications), and poking through the applications and groups my friends have joined already.

One of the things I’ve been doing is chasing down the “Pages” on software and technology I love and use. I became a fan of the “iMac” (because I love love love my shiny new Mac), but also - more usefully - I became a fan of Wordpress and Firefox. Initially I wanted to add those open source software pages to my profile because I’m always keen to tout them out to others. But on reflection, it’s really a bigger part of why I use open source software where I can - there’s a community around them. It’s kind of like why I love wikis - the tech support, development, hacks, tweaks and extensions for these tools are provided by the community. I have a personal investment in these tools (when I provide tech support, hacks, tweaks, etc), and I feel confident using them when I know that support is on hand from thousands of users worldwide, but also I feel more comfortable seeking or asking for support when it’s a two-way relationship - I give to the community, therefore I can take as well.

Plus, I’m kind of a hippie when it comes to technology (despite giving Apple a ridiculous amount of money for my iMac); I’ll always support the community owned and run tool over the one that’s there to capitalise on the user’s wallet. But also, to come back to the wiki model - my experience of the software, and the software itself, is so much richer with the advice and contribution of the community behind it, rather than a single author, corporation, developer/development team.

A lot of the above took shape in my head when I became a fan of Firefox on Facebook and saw Mozilla’s brief blurb about itself there: Mozilla is a global community and public benefit organization dedicated to improving the Internet experience for people everywhere. Now that’s something I can certainly get behind.

But to get to the point of actually making this post here, when I became fan I also discovered that they are actually currently orchestrating “Download Day” - attempting to set the record for the most software downloads in 24 hours with the release of Firefox 3. I can certainly get behind that, too! They haven’t announced a launch date yet, but you can pledge to download Firefox 3 and they will notify you via email when the time arrives. There are currently over 750,000 pledges worldwide.

My ulterior motive is, of course, that I like the way pages display better in Firefox than IE. So I’ll be spreading this word as wide as possible!

How open source is losing the charity battle was posted today on ZDNet Australia. There’s a quote in there from my colleague, given during her presentation at the ConnectingUp conference. Here’s the paragraph:

Even organisations that have embraced open source urge restraint. Philanthropy Australia used the open source MediaWiki software platform built for Wikipedia to help centralise its knowledge resources in a wiki format. “Nearly all our software is open source which works really well for us, but I always caution people that there’s a cost in terms of the time and expertise needed,” said communications and knowledge manager Louise Arkles. “While it has saved us a bit of money up front, there are costs involved.”

I tend to agree with Louise - much as I love open source software, as with all use of tech, don’t forget to take into account the human resources needed to make it work - be that time or expertise. I’ll elaborate on the open source software we use here at the PB, and why:

Our file server is based on Debian

Debian is an open source operating system. Not being a sysadmin, I can’t say much about it myself; it’s managed by our IT firm. One of the good things about Debian is that (and apologies if my terminology/explanation is shaky here, to reiterate: I am no sysadmin) it can come bundled with other open source software including MediaWiki and Wordpress. The down side of this, in my experience, is that sometimes upgrading that additional software can be problematic - what version of Debian you are running will influence how you can stably run the additional software, or take the risks of doing a potentially unstable “backport” if you want the latest version of, say, Wordpress, which is not included in the version of Debian you’re running. Again: skill needed to administer an operating system, and more time/skill to build a backport to manage those upgrades, if you want to do them.

For email, we use Zimbra

Zimbra is browser-based email software that functions just as well as (and looks pretty similar to) Microsoft Outlook. One of the main reasons we took the advice of our IT firm in going with Zimbra was because we needed shared calendaring that would have required an expensive change on our network otherwise. It’s really handy for those staff who work out of the office frequently, and even those who work interstate - being browser-based means that for the technophobes, their email always looks and works the same no matter where they’re accessing it from: very handy! We’ve had few problems with it. Our install, and our email server, is again managed by the IT firm. The software is free, but we pay them to make sure it’s operating efficiently, upgraded, fixed, etc. That it’s browser-based is useful in itself in this case as well - more often than not our IT support can fix the problem remotely, and the problem is usually something to do with the server - i.e. we pretty much never have email problems due to an error on an individual machine. Again, especially handy when our org’s IT support is in Melbourne but we have an office in Sydney.

Our mailing lists are based on Sympa

Much like our email, most of the back-end stuff for Sympa is managed by our IT firm. We’ve been using Sympa for many years, and I must say that our recent Debian upgrade and subsequent Sympa upgrade has made it much easier to use. I am probably too spoilt by Google Groups (which, being web-based, we can’t really use - we need something that we can host on our own servers in order to properly control/maintain), but I find Sympa a bit clunky in terms of its interface. I am sure there are ways to make it less so, but I have not looked into it; we’re currently working with our IT firm to build Sympa into our communications database to make it easier to manage (and avoid some double-handling).

The PhilanthropyWiki is based on MediaWiki

Here’s where my big love for open source comes in. When I’m not at my day job, I’m hosted with DreamHost, who have very handy “one-click installs” - robots that set up MySQL databases and install open source software for you (they have a selection available, including MediaWiki, Wordpress, Joomla and more). Again I manage to avoid that pesky sysadmin stuff, but have managed to teach myself a fair bit about customising my install - enough that at the PB we came in considerably under what we’d budgeted to spend on that project (in terms of work done on it by our IT firm). Pretty much all we ended up paying for was for our IT firm to install the software on our server, give me SFTP access to the install folder so I could modify the LocalSettings.php file and add extensions myself, and make the occassional change to the database that I requested.

That said, it did require a lot of time and skill from me to get it to where it is now, and my time here does = money, so. That said, I am somewhat MediaWiki-mad, and run several wikis based on it, the PhilanthropyWiki being my only work-related one and probably the least modified and with the lowest traffic. So for a while there, my days were very much 24/7 developing and populating wikis (okay, maybe not 24/7, I did sleep occasionally - and dream about wikis). So basically what I’m saying is that yes, we did most of it ourselves, but I don’t think that I am a particularly common human resource for a nonprofit organisation to have. So again: free software, not-so-free skills and time to set up and manage it.

(Related: If you’re interested, a while ago I put together a MediaWiki Resources Post.)

The philanthropyOz Blog is based on Wordpress

As with MediaWiki, Wordpress is another piece of open source software that I have extra-curricular experience with, having used it as a platform for many blogs, podcasts and small websites over the years. So I am quite familiar with customising it - both in terms of tweaking code or adding extensions, and skinning it to make it suit a brand. I’m also familiar enough with the software that I know how to use it most effectively for our needs. The blog is currently the only bit of the PB that uses Wordpress, but in the pipeline I am working on two sub-sites that are also both based on WP. They are currently a bit stalled for the problem with Debian that I outlined above - I need to upgrade to a later version of WP in order to have all the features I require to make these sites work, but in order for that to happen we have to get our IT firm to either build a backport of a later version, or upgrade Debian entirely - which, though the software costs us nothing, does have a labour expense to it.

That’s it for our main open source software (of course we use other free online tools during the course of our work - like Google Reader, Google Analytics, del.icio.us, Feedburner and more). But I will include some honourable mentions as well:

We have Windows XP OS and Microsoft Office on all our machines thanks to DonorTec - The only glitch with the process of obtaining ‘free’ software (i.e. about $10 a piece) via DonorTec was that we had to do some negotiating because we don’t have DGR status. Otherwise, we saved thousands of dollars in the process of our software upgrade (done en masse to make sure we’re all on the same OS etc).

Philanthropy Australia’s main website is not built on a CMS - It’s built from scratch with XHTML and CSS, and managed with Dreamweaver. This is mainly because it’s the first thing that I did when I started doing the PB’s ICT, and that’s what I knew how to do - write websites from scratch. It works well for us, I think - the site, its look, feel and structure, is custom built for our needs, easily modifiable and expandable. There is no cost for our IT firm to manage software (open source or not) to run it, however, because it’s managed with Dreamweaver’s templates, it can generally only be managed with Dreamweaver - with which there is a cost associated.

Our Communications Database is custom built, not off-the-shelf - Our IT firm developed our communications database, and we’ve recently revamped it with much success, during which we worked closely with them to get it exactly how we want it. While this is not the cheapest way to go, it’s most definitely the best for our needs, as we have very specific relationships with our constituents that we need to keep track of and often facilitate through our database. So this solution definitely serves us better than to buy an off-the-shelf option, pay our IT firm to modify and administer the software for us, and the no doubt double-handling etc that would result in it not being able to serve our needs specifically.

On Monday Priscilla Brice-Weller and I presented at the ConnectingUp 08 conference, talking about blogging in nonprofit organisations.

Pris and I presented the talk like a case study - modelling ourselves somewhat on David & Margaret, in our planning stages we mapped out the similarities in our process and then during the talk, took turns in talking about our differing experiences at each step.

For example, the philanthropyOz Blog was originally created because Philanthropy Australia had a need for RSS subscription service, in order to make the website content more accessible for loyal visitors - especially those keen on keeping on top of news and information, but with not so much time for visiting and refreshing. I really had to put the hard sell on my colleagues in the office to convince them that Wordpress was the best tool we could use for running such a service, especially as there was much nervousness around the responsibilities of having something called a “blog”.

As a contrast, the ANTaR blog is more of a traditional blog, containing opinion pieces from a number of authors. ANTaR already knew they wanted a blog before Priscilla came along and set it up for them, and for her, Wordpress offers a different set of features - whereas it’s the dynamic RSS for me, for Pris it’s the simple interface for authors to post and the built-in comment feature, as well as the skin-ability of WP.

Both of us had a number of similarities too, though - choosing Wordpress because of its cost (free/open source), flexibility and wealth of features. Both of us started with minimal goals and guidelines for our organisational blogs, understanding that the blogs would take on a life of their own - grow organically into something that would better suit both their audience and administrators.

I’ve embedded our presentation from the talk below. As you can see, we kept it to a few points per slide, with mine on the left and Pris’ on the right. Click here for Priscilla’s blog post on our talk.

| View | Upload your own

I can’t make a first post about ConnectingUp without mentioning Beth Kanter, who was a keynote speaker at the conference. It was absolutely wonderful to not only see Beth speak, but to have some conversations with her. I think Beth has even inspired me to get back into gear on this whole blogging thing. So I’ll make this post now, and talk more (hopefully soon!) about Beth’s presentation and some other great things I’ve taken away from the conference.

But if I make those post incrementally, I’m more likely to actually make them - instead of just thinking about making one big post and never getting around to it. So stay tuned!

I was reflecting on this blog, and why I can’t seem to manage to post here more than once every few months any more.

I think it’s because when I first set it up and started posting, the stage the PB was at was very much entering this 2.0/social networking space for the first time. I was subscribed to about forty feeds and read just about all of them each day. There were lots of things percolating in my head, and lots of development happening in my organisation by and large.

So what changed? I think that instead of gathering in food for thought and making thinky posts about it (which, now that I think about it, I already said is this blog’s purpose in my Why is this blog? post), I actually started work on the tools themselves. Looking back at the pattern of my blogging here, it was really concentrated around that research stage, when I was making sense of how to approach things. Since then, in my long silences, I’ve been working on building a wiki, managing and developing a pseudo-blog, developing a whole slew of other online tools for the PB’s members. And of course, dealing an increased volume of requests from colleagues who now know this is all possible, so of course want more!

So, I won’t apologise for my long silence, but will resolve to post here reasonably regularly with updates on anything exciting I’m working on, so I can at least better reflect on milestones!

I’ll also take this opportunity to self-promote a bit(!): I’m going to be attending, and presenting at, an Australian nonprofit tech conference on Monday-Tuesday next week: ConnectingUp, in Brisbane.

I’ll be co-presenting a session with Priscilla Brice-Weller of Solidariti on Monday morning. We’re actually talking about nonprofit organisation blogging - sharing and discussing our different perspectives, processes and experiences with the same software (Wordpress). We think it’ll be pretty nifty, so if you’re around, come and see us!

January is supposed to be quiet in the world of philanthropy, but I’ve discovered that all that means is I spend the last hectic month of the year putting things off “until I have more time in Jan”. Which means January rolls around and I’m up to my eyeballs in all manner of things that need to be done.

I’m mildly ashamed to say that I haven’t been keeping up with the blogosphere as much as I should, but still wanted to poke my head in and try and record all the things I’ve been working on:

• In December we officially launched the PhilanthropyWiki - You can read the report I wrote up on it on it here. Feedback so far has been very good; quite a few members have contacted us to contribute, and shown great initiative in their contributions (”it’s so much easier than I thought it would be!” is such great feedback to hear, especially from folks who consider themselves IT-illiterate).
• In November I went to the Not-for-Profit Network’s INCE conference awards dinner - I didn’t end up winning in the category for which I was a finalist, but that was largely a relief (no speech!). I had an absolute ball - the dinner was held at MovieWorld, the dessert shaped like the bat symbol and the wine absolutely lovely. So a success, all-in-all.
• Also in November/December, I wrote an article for the PB’s journal. The article is available online: Embracing information and communications technology for philanthropy’s sake – using ICT to strengthen and grow the sector.

Right now I am working on:

• Re-writing the code of the PB’s website to align with accessibility guidelines. I am getting rid of the image-based javascript navigation menus (which have increased the loading time of the site for a while) and replacing them with entirely CSS-based menus. I am building in CSS styles for all page formatting. I am taking guidance on these accessibilities from The Victorian Government Accessibility Toolkit and W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
• Re-building a website for an academic e-journal based on WordPress (trying to work though university bureaucracy to get me FTP access put this one on hold for a long time).
• Working on plans to present at the Connecting Up 08 conference.
• Working on projects with the Organization for Transformative Works.
• Developing more online membership tools for the PB’s members.
• Next components of the KnowledgeBank - Grants Database, Projects Database, site-wide search.

The list really does go on, and my lunch hour is over, so I suspect it’s time for me to cut this short.

In November I met with a nonprofit advocacy group in Victoria about wiki software. They are investigating options for migrating a hefty resource they produce in hard copy every few years into an online format; the resource contains suggestions for policy and also organises, lists and links to the supporting body of research. They use the same IT firm as the PB; it was the IT firm who suggested the group contact us to talk about what we’d done with the PhilanthropyWiki.

Anyway, to get a bit more rapidly to the point, I promised the group that I’d send on links to more resources on MediaWiki, my wiki software of choice, because the thing with MW is that its support documentation is miserable, therefore the really useful stuff is scattered about wherever other MW users congregate.

So I’m going to use this post to link to and keep track of the MW resources I’ve found particularly useful.

First of all I’ll just outline why I chose MediaWiki over other wiki software. To be honest, I haven’t been much more than experimental with editing wikis based on other software, but nonetheless:

• Wikipedia is based on MediaWiki: your user is more likely to have experience with editing using this particular software - so not only being more likely to overcome that initial hurdle of contributing, but being familiar with MW wikicoding.
• MediaWiki is powerful and has a huge capacity. Whatever you’re building, it’s pretty likely that it’s only going to grow. Even if you only have a comparatively small amount of data in it, the structure will organise it well. As your collection expands, it’s very unlikely that it’ll outgrow the software (think of Wikipedia’s huge mass).
• Because it’s so high-profile, there are a lot of people using it, talking about it, building on it. You can ask a question into the void (whether google search or a message board) and voices will answer you.
• Again, its solid foundations means that the software is upgraded reliably and regularly.

Then again, I could be totally blinkered because I’m very much hook-line-and-sinkered for MW right now, which means I’ll glowingly recommend it for whatever you’ve got going (I exagerrate only a little).

So here are the resources I’ve found useful. Some of them are site-wide recommendations, others only specific parts:

MediaWiki Users Forums

The MW Users Forums are by far the most useful resource for a MediaWiki admininstrator. I’ve found it useful when searching for a solution to a problem - often something that someone has brought up & had solved before; when just browsing for new ideas, hacks, extensions and even just the extent of features available; and when I can’t readily find an answer - there is a regular crowd there whose expertise and willingness to offer solutions is invaluable.

It’s also much more searchable that most - scratch that, ALL - ‘official’ MediaWiki help resources. The MW search engine is not conducive to finding solutions to problems (but more on that below).

Tip: When searching the MW Users Forums, be experimental with your searching. MW is such an extensive piece of machinery that often you may not know the name of the specific part you need to tinker with. In other words, if searching for “navigation” doesn’t work, then try “menu” or “links” to get to the correct thread on “MediaWiki:Sidebar” from sideways.

Gallery of User Styles

The page itself may be a mess, but the content is fabulous - here is where MW users who wish to share post the skin modifications for MediaWiki they’ve created. I’ve used & modified a few of these (PhilanthropyWiki is based on vbGORE), and I must stress the value of skinning your own install of MediaWiki to make it unique.

This is because MediaWiki is so frequently considered synonymous with Wikipedia by your average web user - because Wikipedia uses the default “monobook” MW skin. Now there is a value in making users comfortable with the MW editing interface, but most of the time you’d be doing yourself a huge disservice to create a site that much of your audience will consider just another part of Wikipedia (especially if the mission/purpose of your wiki differs from Wikipedia’s).

Stable Extensions

As with above, this category at mediawiki.org lists all the stable extensions created by users of MediaWiki software. There are some real gems in there. My favourites include:

• Google Analytics Integration - to preserve your stats during/after an upgrade
• Dynamic Page List - for incredibly extensive, simple and customisable reporting on your wiki statistics
• Google Maps - fits perfectly in with the simple editing interface of MW for adding maps with markers to any page
• ReCAPTCHA - building in CAPTCHA software, the most effective spam combat I’ve come across for MW, and customisable (eg. only for new users/posting links/anonymous edits)
• Wiki Category Tag Cloud - just what it sounds like - a nifty widget that considers categories as tags and does the whole “cloud” thing - it’s a great immediate visual representation of your wiki, especially when MW is built to be so large.

There are many, many more in that category that I will no doubt mine as the opportunity arises. Another tip - if you see an extension you like on someone else’s MW install, go to Special Pages -> Version - it will list & link to the extensions installed.

And now for the Anti-Recommendation: Meta.MediaWiki.org & MediaWiki.org

Ostensibly the “official” documentation for MW, these pages are poorly organised and practically impossible to search. The sites themselves seem to be in a constant identity crisis. I believe Meta is supposedly the help/documentation site, but there’s no easy portal to MediaWiki help from the front page (or even the navigation). I only ever rarely discover it by stumbling across it (so let’s see if I can do so now…).

The Help:Contents page is probably the most useful portal on Meta. That said, it’s not much good for hands-on help, more just giving yourself an overview and trying to comprehend MW’s general principles of functioning. The MW User Forums are much better for finding any “answers”. Considering just what I’ve seen by browsing around the MW User Forums, Meta is vastly incomplete.

And last of all, I’ll recommend my favourite service provider: Dreamhost. I recommend it here because although I am quite good at tweaking, customising and modifying; unfortunately I am clueless when it comes to databases and installation and whatnot. Dreamhost has unbelievably handy one-click installs for a range of open-source software, MediaWiki included, and a very user-friendly system for upgrading as well. In addition, their tech support services are outstanding, I really can’t praise them enough for being immensely helpful on the very few glitches I’ve caused on trying to play around with my own installs. Dreamhost’s own support wiki has a MediaWiki page which I find quite useful, too.

Hopefully I’ll be adding to this post as I come across more useful bits and pieces, so please feel free to suggest any that I’ve left out or not come across.

The Organization for Transformative Works has put itself out into the field by launching its website: http://transformativeworks.org

Already the OTW has been profiled at thechronical.com and boingboing.net, with debates, criticisms & support raging in a range of other blogs (which I can provide links for, if anyone is particularly interested).

A personal hobby (and passion!) of mine is being involved in popular culture fan communities, so I have watched this convergence of my personal and professional areas avidly, and have recently become more involved in helping to develop the projects OTW are supporting. Primarily OTW is about providing support for and legitimacy to what they term “Media Fandom” - to over-simplify vastly, the group of fans whose communities germinated with particular groups and practices in the mid-late 1900s (though that’s a point under debate as well, but we won’t go there right now); they are predominantly female, and the community/ies thrive with creativity, producing a huge volume of “transformative works” - writing, video and art (to name only a few mediums) that riff on, reimagine and “transform” original texts (such as a TV show, film, comic book).

These practices have been given little legitimacy by academic discourses on fan behaviour; and outside of academia, in legal systems these kinds of fans are unprotected. An academic journal produced by OTW aims to provide more support in that debate. In mainstream society and culture fans and their practices are likewise frequently looked down-upon. OTW exists to provide legal assistance for fans in case of repercussions in their actions with regards to copyright law (thus the name “transformative” supporting this advocacy on a basic level) and other laws that effect them, such as obscenity laws (in the case of sexually explicit fan writing or art, etc). At any rate, you can find more about the projects OTW is undertaking here.

I should probably note here - this comes up in many of the debates - in striving for the legitimacy of creative fanworks and other fan activities, this community is not seeking a part of the financial prize, but rather an acknowledgement of the validity of fan creativity as artistic expression. The “What we believe” and FAQ pages on the OTW website have more succint details about this kind of issue.

Being involved in these relatively early stages of establishing the OTW and observing the reaction it’s garnered in the community has been fascinating. In a such a huge, diverse community, many fans have resisted what they perceive as an attempt to organise them or monopolise their inherent multiplicity (of experiences, opinions and needs). Many are reluctant because this kind of behaviour has led to failure of ‘organising’ groups before, but I believe OTW is different in the way it’s setting itself up - as a legally structured nonprofit organisation.

That is the kind of organisation I have more experience with! The OTW has a board of six and within their officially committees I believe over 60 people. Beyond this initial set-up, the board will be elected by members of the OTW (yes, paying members - donations and membership fees will support the operation of the OTW). The OTW is set up to support the community it’s built out of into perpetuity - not only to continue to advocate and provide legal assistance, but more importantly to a larger number of fans, host their own servers that will not be removed or prosecuted in a fit of copyright law (i.e. wherein creative fanworks can be shared and archived).

I think many fans in the community have failed to grasp the fundamental principle of the OTW as a support organisation rather than a controlling organisation - not that I think that suspicion is not warrented, as I myself value the chaos of diversity that makes up fandom. But still, thus my own desire to become involved! The OTW has been set up to allow the very fans it supports to shape it for their own needs, and I’m quite excited at the thought that the organisation will continue on, with a constant flow of fans moving through its committees & boards (and huge volunteer pool), evolving to suit the needs of the people who make use of it.

At any rate, I find the whole venture fascinating - and relevant to nonprofit tech in an atypical way - the constituents & communities the OTW has been established to support all exist pretty exclusively online. (And of course, online is where the majority of its services and operations will occur.) I’m very much looking forward to digging in.

First news first: We’ve made the PhilanthropyWiki live. Press release about this momentous occasion can be found at the PB blog, here. (Not the most momentous of occasions just yet: our official launch is to occur in December.)

It’s slightly nerve-wracking… I’m not sure I can ever feel it’s “ready”, though we’ve been working on it for months on end! I anticipate that there are a bunch of broken links to resources we added months ago (note to self: figure out a way to overcome that particular on-going problem), and I know there are incomplete pages. But, that’s pretty par for the course for a wiki model! The skeleton of it is definitely there, and there’s enough info already to make it interestingly browseable. Any feedback you might have is very welcome! I’d love to hear from a more diverse audience.

Secondly: A while ago I posted that my co-workers nominated me for a “team member of the year” award. Yesterday we heard that I’m a finalist! I’m somewhat gobsmacked, but looking forward to heading up to the Gold Coast for the awards dinner.

At the PB today. Just had a call from someone at Microsoft. I was told that they’re running some kind of program to give software to nonprofits.

I turned down the offer, as we upgraded our IT with the help of DonorTec in March, but I was still tickled to find out that not only are doing this kind of program, but that they are actually calling nonprofits out of the blue to offer it!

Alas, I’m not that much of a quick thinker on the phone; I should have asked more about what the program was about, what they’re offering, etc. I did a quick google search and only came up with this - which links back to DonorTec. When I told the gentleman on the phone that we’d received software through DonorTec, his response indicated more that the program he was offering was not part of DonorTec.

Hmm!