<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Andrew, thank you for this email which helps clarify (at least for
me) what a joint Eclipse/OSGeo relationship might look like. In
particular, I found this section on your website very insightful:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_difference_between_Eclipse_and_OSGeo_for_example.3F">http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_difference_between_Eclipse_and_OSGeo_for_example.3F</a><br>
<br>
I've actually learned a few things about OSGeo from this page.<br>
<br>
Re Conferences: I think that the path forward toward a joint
OSGeo/Eclipse FOSS4G conference formula will be reasonably easy to
navigate. I'll leave that topic for the moment.<br>
<br>
Re: Foundations providing an umbrella for projects:<br>
* I think there is potentially a lot of value to be gained by
bringing in the best of both OSGeo and Eclipse, although there is
also the potential for fragmentation between two competing
foundations which would be less desirable. I may be an optimist, but
as we all come from Open Source backgrounds, I think we have the
collective culture and track record to be confident that we can
navigate toward a positive synergy between the two foundations.<br>
<br>
Re: "The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is the default OSI approved
license used at Eclipse":<br>
Is this negotiable? I expect this will be difficult hurdle to cross
for many projects, mainly due to the inherited dependencies of
underlying libraries, and the number of contributors which will need
to be contacted in order to facilitate such a change.<br>
<br>
Re: Processes, Policies and Periodic releases:<br>
I see this as as an area which OSGeo can gain from Eclipse.
Processes which enable consistent quality control, along with
predictable release cycles are important factors in software being
considered by large risk adverse agencies and projects, as well as
many other sections of the purchasing community as well.<br>
OSGeo does have an incubation process which is a once off process
projects go through. We also have the OSGeo-Live DVD periodic
release cycle. I think it would be valuable to see how we can align
these existing processes with what Eclipse can offer in this regard.<br>
And I think this formula from Eclipse is well worth considering as
Eclipse has a track record to show that by following their formula,
we should be able to take OSGeo projects to a higher level of
uptake, and financial gain for the community.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 20/06/2012 1:37 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FE09CAE.5020405@eclipse.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Everyone,<br>
<br>
These are some relevant thoughts more than a direct reply to
Jody's post. Hopefully they help the discussion along.<br>
<br>
Working together, we see good potential for triggering growth,
innovation, and increased mind-share for open source location
technology. Nurturing existing technology is important. We also
want to invest in new & innovative areas not currently
addressed. There are things we can do to help enable
organizations to invest. This is what this is about.<br>
<br>
Projects:<br>
<br>
Simply put, some projects (hosted @ OSGeo or otherwise) will
look at the relative increase in process & formality or
something else and decide it just isn't for them.<br>
<br>
Other projects will be attracted to the opportunity to gain
additional mind-share and energy via. the group @ Eclipse.
Eclipse is ubiquitous and well trusted in places likely to be
desirable to projects and community. This includes
organizations, and also technology areas like enterprise IT,
Aerospace, Automotive, Financial, etc.<br>
<br>
Some projects may decide to be involved in both foundations if
they see a way to so with little downside. Some projects may
decide for neither. Some may feel one way today, and re-evaluate
in the future. <br>
<br>
<br>
Events:<br>
<br>
Collaborating on events seems like a good idea.<br>
<br>
Things work similarly for events between OSGeo & Eclipse.
It's probably fair to say there's less risk and maybe a bit more
consistency @ Eclipse given the dedicated full time staff
handling the logistics and fund raising. Also, we tend to host
the main annual conferences in the same location for a few years
at a time which also helps with risk.<br>
<br>
Here's how a typical EclipseCon/ EclipseCon Europe is run:<br>
The program committee is made up of community members/committers
and invited industry experts.<br>
The logistics such as A/V, Catering, Security, etc. are handled
by a full-time event planning team. <br>
The business team handle sponsorship, accounting, etc. <br>
<br>
In general, for what it's worth, working together doesn't need
to be divisive. Thank you to the team directly involved, the
people discussing the topic here, and especially Michael for
going to great lengths trying to ensure it isn't.<br>
<br>
Directly addressing a few things:<br>
<br>
Q: Will Eclipse become a platinum (or any other level) sponsor
of OSGeo.<br>
A: I can't really say. The Steering Committee of the group will
prioritize their budget based on their goals & how such a
proposal would contribute towards achieving them.<br>
<br>
Q: Will Eclipse work *through* OSGeo.<br>
A: We would like to find a way to work *together* on initiatives
of mutual interest.<br>
<br>
In case you're interested, more FAQ information is posted here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ">http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ</a><br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 06/19/2012 03:55 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:C67931B226F5489FB3E2962EB9DE4823@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"><span>
<div>
<div>I think that OSGeo should say:<br>
<br>
* OSGeo wants to continue to be the recognised
foundation that Geospatial Open Source projects turn to
for support. In particular, we don't want to see the
marketplace split by choosing between one foundation and
another. Such a slit is likely to create a lot of bad
will amongst the greater community, and lead to reduced
productivity which will not be good for anyone.<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<div>I don't think we have much danger of that - a choice is not
required. Projects already work with multiple groups (examples
github for hosting; OSGeo for community development; source
forge for file distribution; free software foundation for
legal advice and so on …).</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"><span>
<div>
<div> * As such we wish to see the Eclipse Foundation
worth through the OSGeo Foundation.<br>
<br>
If we can get the Eclipse Foundation to agree to the
above, then I think we can continue moving forward with
a positive discussion.<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<div>Counter proposal here. We have already have a precedent of
working with the OGC on a few activities (an interoperability
day, a white paper and so on, and we maintain a osge-standards
email list to facilitate discussion).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps we can treat this location working group in a
similar fashion, consider it as an "OSGeo industry outreach"
activity and ask that OSGeo maintain a representative in the
group.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Aside: With respect to OGC collaboration, what is the
process the OGC uses to define their open source reference
implementations? Along with cite tests this seems like like an
obvious candidate for direct collaboration.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jody</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b>Andrew Ross</b><br>
Director, Ecosystems<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://eclipse.org">Eclipse
Foundation</a><br>
Twitter: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/42aross">@42aross</a><br>
Mobile: 1-613-614-5772<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">http://www.lisasoft.com</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>