Humanitarian Frontiers Podcast: “Open Source, Open Futures—Digital Public Goods”

Podcast: Humanitarian Frontiers
Episode Title: Open Source, Open Futures—Digital Public Goods
Date: March 22, 2026
Host: Chris Hoffman
Guests:

• Sandra Wateng Hart (Mercy Corps Ventures)
• Doug Smith (Acting CEO, Data Friendly Space)

Episode Overview

This episode explores the realities and complexities of open source technology and digital public goods (DPGs) in the humanitarian sector. Host Chris Hoffman leads a candid discussion with sector innovators Sandra Wateng Hart and Doug Smith, tackling how open source mandates and digital public goods are shaping—sometimes constraining—the ability of NGOs and local actors to use, adapt, and sustain technology for social impact. The guests unpack field experiences, donor influences, procurement headaches, and funding dilemmas, offering a vibrant mix of optimism and critique.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Does “Open Source” Really Mean for Humanitarian Work?

Timestamps: 00:32 – 09:42

• Definitional confusion:

  • Many NGOs and donors insist on open source solutions without understanding the full practical and ethical implications.
  • “We’re hearing a lot around digital public goods. We’re hearing a lot around everything needs to be open source. But what does that really mean…?” (Chris, 00:32)

• Historical perspective:

  • Open source is a long-running discussion, not a recent trend. Technology adoption lags in humanitarian organizations due to their bureaucracy and lack of technical skill sets. (Doug, 05:36)

• Structural misalignment:

  • NGOs aren’t built to be tech development houses, making open source adoption often impractical and even irresponsible.
  • “All of the methodologies involved in building technology are not part of the skill set of these organizations. And I think it actually impairs organizations’ capacity to use tech responsibly when those skills are not being cultivated…” (Sandra, 07:11)

• Maintainer Dilemma:

  • Open sourcing everything can lead to “GitHub graveyards” – abandoned projects with no path to sustainability or upkeep. (Chris, 09:42)

2. Power, Participation & the Missing Community

Timestamps: 09:42 – 13:44

• Absence of true open source community:

  • The success of open source depends on vibrant, engaged communities. NGOs often lack the tech culture and online spaces (like Discord) that drive successful open source projects. (Chris, 09:42)

• Localization Paradox:

  • Mandating open source can inadvertently hurt local tech startups by undercutting their business models, limiting their ability to develop local solutions. (Sandra, 07:11; 13:44)

• Unintended consequences:

  • Requirements for openness may even hamper innovation and create barriers for diverse ecosystem actors, especially in growing tech hubs like Nairobi and Kigali. (Sandra, 13:44)

3. Donor Dynamics & Sustainability

Timestamps: 11:37 – 18:11

• Donor-driven requirements:

  • Donors, not practitioners, often force the open source agenda, but rarely fund beyond prototypes or MVPs, leading to zombie projects. (Doug, 11:37)

• Distinction: Open Source vs. Digital Public Good:

  • Open source doesn’t always equate to DPG; the latter is broader and can include partial openness or shared core resources with sustainable business models. (Doug, 11:37; Sandra, 13:44)

• Funding challenge:

  • The business models for sustaining digital public goods remain shaky. End users expect free access, but someone needs to pay for ongoing development and support. (Doug, 18:11)

4. Procurement, Power, and the Institutional Drag

Timestamps: 23:35 – 32:49

• Procurement as limitation:

  • NGO procurement is often a mismatch for tech: built for buying tents and blankets, not licensing software or managing IP.
  • “When I get a contract from an NGO, it's as if I'm selling them blankets. It has nothing to do with the tech or the understanding.” (Chris, 23:35)

• Hosting debates:

  • NGOs want to control hosting (e.g., resisting AWS or Azure) while lacking the capacity or security investment of major providers, sometimes leading to questionable decisions. (Doug, 27:32)
  • Decisions rooted in centralizing power and mistrust inadvertently reinforce the very dynamics humanitarian tech is supposed to disrupt. (Sandra, 28:33)

• Mercy Corps Ventures’ model:

  • Adopts startup-savvy contracting and support, straddling both the needs of local innovators and large NGOs for more sustainable outcomes. (Sandra, 28:33)

5. The “Third Space”: Intermediaries & New Models

Timestamps: 32:49 – 35:25

• The “missing middle”:

  • Both Doug and Sandra stress the need for intermediary organizations or hybrid entities that bridge between tech sector innovation and humanitarian/development realities.
  • “No one’s funding the people in the middle right now,” Doug (18:11)
  • These intermediaries can help local actors navigate and contribute to digital public goods, but often lack sustainable support.

• Agility of local NGOs:

  • Smaller, local organizations are more able to engage with new technology models and public goods than larger INGOs. (Sandra, 34:15)

6. Corporate “Dot Orgs,” Foundations & Shifting Landscapes

Timestamps: 36:38 – 44:51

• Rise of “dot orgs”:

  • Large tech companies (e.g., Salesforce.org, Twilio.org) create foundations or charity arms, entering the humanitarian space with major capital and pull.
  • These entities are trusted by the public but may “muddy the waters” with hybrid interests. (Chris, 37:17; Doug, 38:42)
  • “Corporations are much more trusted than nonprofits, certainly more than governments… And I have to be honest with you, they're going to start sucking up really good talent if Nvidia.org calls…” (Doug, 38:42)

• Hybrid arms of NGOs:

  • Organizations like Save the Children, IRC, and Mercy Corps are launching their own venture arms.
  • These hybrid entities are experimenting with new engagement models, carefully navigating ethics, inclusion, and partnership with the tech sector. (Sandra, 40:17)

• Critical engagement:

  • Humanitarian actors must assess corporate/“dot org” intentions and not reflexively jump at free money, to avoid undermining their own values and objectives. (Sandra, 44:21)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On tech culture disconnect:
  “How many NGOs have a Discord channel? Nobody!” (Chris, 09:42)

• Danger of hollow openness:
  “You sort of end up with these labels like must be open source, without any deeper or long-term thinking about the consequences of that.” (Sandra, 07:11)

• GitHub graveyard reality:
  “Everything gets open sourced and then you get GitHub graveyards of code that’s just sitting and doing nothing.” (Chris, 09:42)
  “You might have an MVP and then you have software rot within 18 months because no one's willing to take these things to scale.” (Doug, 11:37)

• Misplaced priorities:
  “You’re not blinking at using Microsoft Office or Outlook…but there’s this misplaced assumption that it’s bad to pay for technology.” (Sandra, 19:38)

• Structural inertia:
  “Institutions are moving much, much slower than the technology and the innovators in the space just get squeezed.” (Doug, 27:06)

• Critical hope for localized models:
  “There are not zero resources in the humanitarian space. Yes, we have to do more with less. But we are very, very lucky to be faced with that challenge at a time when we have technology that can automate a lot of bureaucratic processes.” (Sandra, 49:31)

Key Timestamps by Topic

• What do open source and DPGs really mean? (00:32–09:42)
• Open source, community, and the “GitHub graveyard” (09:42–13:44)
• Donor dynamics and (unsustainable) innovation (11:37–18:11)
• Local ecosystems and the localization paradox (13:44–17:30)
• Digital public goods in practice: funding and adoption (17:30–23:35)
• Procurement, hosting, and institutional (mis)fit (23:35–32:49)
• Intermediaries and the missing middle (32:49–35:25)
• Rise of tech “dot orgs” and hybrid ventures (36:38–44:51)

Closing Reflections: Wishes for the Sector

Timestamps: 47:40–51:24

• Doug’s wish:
  For the sector to focus less on open sourcing everything, and more on creating mesh networks and interoperability among AI agents and digital tools.
  “The thing that I would love for us to do is to start having a substantive conversation, not about open sourcing all of our AI agents, but instead creating this sense of interoperability and mesh networks.” (Doug, 47:40)

• Sandra’s wish:
  For humanitarian actors to use this period of crisis as an opportunity to invest more intentionally into tech capacity, skills, and local ecosystem engagement, with a view to inclusive, sustainable, and less centralized humanitarian technology.
  “That is the perfect time to start to think in a very forward way around redistributing resources and investing them in the tech capacities, in knowledge, skills and engagement with local tech ecosystems and empowering the use of local tech tools by local actors.” (Sandra, 49:31)

Tone and Style

Rich, candid, and at times irreverent, with all three participants offering sector-savvy critique and sharing practical anecdotes, frustrations, and hopes. Jargon and inside jokes (e.g., “NGO Bingo: concretizing” at 36:23) mix with straightforward language about real world obstacles and possible paths forward.

Summary

This episode provides a must-listen primer for anyone interested in the real opportunities and pitfalls of open source and digital public goods in humanitarian technology. From donor requirements and “GitHub graveyards” to the rise of corporate “dot orgs” and hybrid intermediary models, Hoffman, Hart, and Smith map out both the hard truths and emerging possibilities for more responsible, community-driven, and sustainable tech adoption in global aid.