<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Everyone,<br>
<br>
Arnulf questioned why I edited some of the changes he made on the <a
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ">FAQ</a>.<br>
<br>
I'd like to share a few thoughts here in the form of clearing up
some misconceptions he seemed to have. Hopefully this helps.<br>
<br>
1) Openness, transparency, and vendor neutrality<br>
<br>
Arnulf wrote: "please feel free to talk to the board list of OSGeo,
you are more than welcome there (that list is open to anybody,
another fundamental difference to how Eclipse operates)."<br>
<br>
At Eclipse, the discussion forums, IRC, wiki, bug tracker, code
repositories, many of the conference calls, events, board minutes,
etc. are all public. These principles are part of everything the
Eclipse Foundation does so this statement insinuating otherwise is
bogus.<br>
<br>
You'll find the mailing list & archives here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/location-iwg">https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/location-iwg</a> is open to
anyone who's interested.<br>
<br>
2) Membership base @ Eclipse is a weakness, few sponsors at OSGeo is
a strength<br>
<br>
Arnulf wrote: "On one side this makes OSGeo staff-less but otoh is a
strength because it also makes OSGeo independent from the whims and
ups and downs of commercial organizations. This is a central feature
of OSGeo and cannot be one of Eclipse."<br>
<br>
This image is relevant:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://i.imgur.com/1SoxE.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/1SoxE.jpg</a><br>
<br>
Let's be realistic, OSGeo would have been glad to keep previous
sponsors and have others as well. Calling it a "
feature" is being rather dismissive of the issues that caused the
companies to leave. Others would likely use stronger language. ;-)<br>
<br>
A large member body and a mature governance model helps to smooth
out the ups & downs of any one organization. Having
organizations engaged is a good thing... it subsidizes the things
that cost money and it brings valuable ideas, mind-share, energy,
and relevance.<br>
<br>
The bottom line is the governance model @ Eclipse is a bit different
and it provides professional services to projects in addition to
volunteer energy. It is every bit as community & project
focused. Some projects will love it, others not so much. But choice
- both, one, the other, neither isn't a bad thing.<br>
<br>
If possible, I'd love to shift the conversation to the positive
things we can do together. Talking about it is likely going to be
more fun & interesting. Here are just a few ideas:<br>
<ul>
<li>Events... regional, global, virtual, meet-ups, code sprints<br>
</li>
<li>New project ideas</li>
<li>Getting organizations involved with existing projects</li>
<li>Creating a simultaneous release of location technology<br>
</li>
</ul>
Andrew<br>
</body>
</html>