<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hey Cameron,<br>
<br>
I may be wrong in thinking so, but it seems like conflating
hosting of FOSS4G with a comparison of OSGeo & LocationTech
may make the discussion more complicated and confusing. It seems
off-topic least in this forum, which focuses on conferences. <br>
<br>
It's an interesting topic and I'm very happy discussing of course.<br>
<br>
As a brief comment here, it seems to me the concern a group of
people have about LocationTech is the explicit influence of member
companies. For what it's worth, member companies like this. ;-)<br>
<br>
The thing is, that influence is balanced by explicit requirement
for committer representation. If it isn't obvious, it's also
designed to explicitly balance the interests of large & small
companies. Helping projects, the user community, & adopting
companies relate and collaborate together is the reason the group
exists so this just makes sense. LocationTech has guest membership
today to reach beyond to others. I could easily see it evolving to
add explicit user community & academic representation if that
helped people feel more comfortable. Would that be desirable?<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 05/09/14 18:53, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:540A3EF2.4060604@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
It has been suggested this conversation be delayed till after
foss4g when people have more bandwidth (or maybe there will be
conversations at foss4g, which would be a good thing).
Unfortunately I won't be at foss4g, so will provide advance
thoughts here.<br>
<br>
Lets start by comparing OSGeo and LocationTech.<br>
Both:<br>
* Have an incubation process for ensuring the quality of projects,
and showing a recognised quality brand.<br>
* Provide marketing, with an emphasis on conferences<br>
* Offer infrastructure and development processes<br>
* Attract sponsors<br>
<br>
Differences:<br>
* LocationTech have paid staff, OSGeo doesn't<br>
* LocationTech's approach is more top down (with a board drawn
mostly from sponsoring business), OSGeo is more bottom up (with a
board drawn from development and user communities)<br>
* OSGeo has a strong Education community, I don't think
LocationTech works as much in the education space<br>
<br>
I think there are great benefits which could be gained by closer
integration between LocationTech and OSGeo, beyond just lip
service, but rather by putting practical steps in place.<br>
<br>
In particular:<br>
A. Why are there two different incubation processes? Can't we
combine these? Or if there are fundamental differences, why not
make incubation a two stage process, with a Level 1/Level 2
qualification. Surely that would be of benefit for the incubating
projects and the greater open source community?<br>
<br>
B. Conversations in this thread so far have focused on the global
FOSS4G event, which has become very large and burn out our FOSS4G
LOCs, but local events can be organised with very little overhead.
Yes, drawing upon a paid staff member (such as employed by
LocationTech) could facilitate knowledge sharing between regions
which would be very useful. Knowledge from Lessons Learned should
also be collected in a FOSS4G Cookbook in case the staff leave.
And if the Cookbook were made public, then it could be contributed
to by the greater community, and also be used for regional, local
and micro FOSS4G events. An initial version of the cookbook exists
[1] and even draws upon some LocationTech material. If
LocationTech is serious about engaging in FOSS4G I'd suggest that
contributing to a public cookbook should be one of the
cornerstones for involvement.<br>
<br>
C. The OSGeo-Live project provides an excellent marketing tool for
Open Source GIS projects, yet only a few of LocationTech projects
are represented on OSGeo-Live. I'd suggest that in a collaborative
engagement, we should see all LocationTech graduated projects on
OSGeo-Live. This would probably involve LocationTech engaging in
OSGeo-Live development.<br>
<br>
D. Money - this is a harder issue, but needs to be flagged. It
would be easier if sponsorship dollars were aggregated, then
distributed among OSGeo/LocationTech priorities appropriately. I
suggest this topic be shelved till after addressing the other
suggestions.<br>
<br>
E. Why do child projects need to pick which parent project they
love the most? Why do sponsors need to pick which project to
sponsor? The greater the practical integration between OSGeo and
LocationTech, the better it will be for the projects, the
sponsors, and greater open source community. <br>
<br>
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook</a><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/09/2014 11:32 pm, Andrew Ross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5409BB77.1090000@eclipse.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thank you Steven, everyone.<br>
<br>
More thoughts in hopes they help:<br>
<br>
I sense the key concern may be profit sharing which is
Cameron's point #1. I say this because LocationTech projects
(JTS, uDig, GeoGig, GeoTrellis, GeoMesa, etc.), or
unaffiliated projects (Leaflet, d3, Anvil, Cesium, etc.) and
initiatives are usually welcome to speak at FOSS4G and the
audience is definitely interested in them. <br>
<br>
There may be some tension between those that feel FOSS4G is a
big tent for any quality open source geospatial software, and
those that feel FOSS4G strictly == OSGeo. <br>
<br>
In my opinion, having been to all FOSS4G's since 2007 except
one, the spirit of FOSS4G has always clearly been a big tent.
I also think this *strengthens* the FOSS4G brand considerably,
which is a good thing for everyone.<br>
<br>
Speaking to Cameron's point #1, for FOSS4G NA 2015, we are
planning a fixed price per paid registration to contribute to
OSGeo. This is a simple paradigm that is very clear to
understand and helps ensure mutual success from a great event.
I welcome feedback on this idea.<br>
<br>
Speaking to Cameron's point #2. Based on what Darrell &
others before him have shared, it sounds like OSGeo is already
somewhat absentee in terms of "controlling" FOSS4G. I noticed
there are often fairly significant differences between FOSS4G
proposals & the actual results. Sometimes considerable
differences like a hike of 50% in registration prices for
example. I think a clear relationship with the Eclipse
Foundation with clear terms and strong continuity over time
might enable more building upon each event might be better.<br>
<br>
For #3, with LocationTech, Apache, Mozilla, & many others
doing open source geospatial, and other initiatives like
Geomeetup & Georabble and many others are thriving, I
think OSGeo is one of many organizations. This thought seems
scary to a small group of people who had bigger aspirations.
This diversity doesn't bother the vast majority of people in
the community. I don't think "there can be only one" is
necessary for OSGeo's brand to thrive. If the OSGeo board
would like my help and advice with regards to brand, I am
happy to offer it.<br>
<br>
These are my thoughts and feelings. I welcome feedback and
criticism.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 05/09/14 05:16, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B84B036A-F13B-488F-8AE7-BE9A8F763BD5@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Cameron makes some very good points which probably articulate
the concerns of many in the OSGeo community. On the other
hand, Andrew sets out well some of the concerns that people
like me have regarding the sustainability of FOSS4G global
events and perhaps the longer term vision and growth of OSGeo.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are many of us who are passionate about open source
and want to help to strengthen our community and reach out
to an ever growing opportunity. Surely we can find a way for
OSGeo and Eclipse to collaborate that furthers our shared
objectives and addresses any concerns?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You can consider this an offer to help if wanted<br>
<div> <span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing:
0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">______<br>
Steven<br>
<br>
</span> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 5 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Andrew Ross <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:andrew.ross@eclipse.org">andrew.ross@eclipse.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Cameron,<br>
<br>
I'm grateful for your comments & insights.<br>
<br>
After the vote was settled, multiple people approached
me, apologized, and explained they felt bullied to vote
against the D.C. bid. The fear you speak of is a
powerful thing. I would like to help address it if I
can.<br>
<br>
Would do you suggest we do to address these concerns?<br>
<br>
<br>
To address your more general comments. There are good
people at the helm at LocationTech and they're
interested in building great technology & a vibrant
ecosystem. The group has consistently made decisions in
the spirit of collaboration and mutual benefit.<br>
<br>
Whether it's sharing Legal/IP analysis of OSGeo projects
so they can fix problems, sponsoring events, inviting
OSGeo projects to speak at events, using staff to help
organize FOSS4G-NA 2015, and more. These are tangible
useful things from LocationTech that benefited OSGeo
& the wider community.<br>
<br>
There is no us & them. We're all part of the same
community that transcends
organizations/projects/initiatives. Different areas of
the community take different approaches which are fine
and complementary. Who says it has to be a zero sum
game?! What if there's nothing to be scared of? Be
prudent, but not fearful.<br>
<br>
People who have good reason to know have been saying for
some time that the status quo with FOSS4G is not
sustainable. The issues are still as of yet unaddressed.
Many of the problems are things the Eclipse Foundation
and LocationTech can address. This isn't the only path
forward, but I sense one that is more open &
collaborative has a higher chance for mutual success.
That's the spirit of open source.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 04/09/14 18:51, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Andrew,<br>
The Washington FOSS4G proposal was very compelling,
however it was not selected. I can't speak for all the
committee who voted or for their reasons for
selection, however I will hazard some guesses, and aim
to be frank to help further dialogue.<br>
<br>
When LocationTech was founded there was concern from
some that OSGeo would become redundant due to
LocationTech attracting Open Source GIS mindshare
away from OSGeo. While LocationTech has attracted some
mindshare, I think many of the original concerns have
not yet been realised, and OSGeo still remains a very
effective and efficiently run organisation.<br>
<br>
Beyond the efficiency of OSGeo's do-ocrity approach to
empowering volunteer communities, I suspect part of
the reason OSGeo retains its brand recognition is the
strong association between OSGeo and FOSS4G
conferences. These FOSS4G conferences also provide
OSGeo with a modest income which cover's OSGeo's
frugal expenses.<br>
<br>
I sense there is an unspoken concern within OSGeo
voting communities that giving control of FOSS4G
conferences to LocationTech has the potential to:<br>
1. Cut into OSGeo's current primary income source.<br>
2. Result in a loss of OSGeo's control of FOSS4G and
related activities.<br>
3. Erode OSGeo's brandname, marketing reach, and
mindshare.<br>
<br>
This is a different situation to OSGeo engaging a
Professional Conference Organisor (PCO) to run a
FOSS4G event, as the PCO is not competing for Open
Source GIS mindshare.<br>
<br>
If LocationTech wish to play a greater role in FOSS4G,
and attract OSGeo trust and community votes, I suggest
LocationTech put practical measures in place which
focus on these touch points.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>