<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Jeff,<br>
<br>
It is really hard to discuss this topic because you make stuff up.
The concerns stem from the fantasy rather than reality.<br>
<br>
The <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit?usp=drive_web">FAQ
produced recently</a> does a pretty good job covering the
situation.<br>
<br>
In 3 years, so far as I know, absolutely no harm has come to OSGeo
as a result of LocationTech, and certainly not from any
official/intentional actions. On the contrary, there's a nice body
of ever growing benefits.<br>
<br>
Regarding your new claims:<br>
<ul>
<li>The press releases & charter for LocationTech have not
changed. They're all still up where they always were and
haven't been modified. (seriously?!)<br>
</li>
<li>LocationTech & OSGeo have had formal relations for some
time as Jody notes. There is all kinds of collaboration
happening frequently and people are fine with it.</li>
<li>We gave many examples in the FAQ about LocationTech helping
OSGeo. I'm not even sure that (positive list) was calculated
necessarily as much as things that arise matter of course from
the things the group does.<br>
</li>
<li>The evidence is for all to see in the bid proposals,
LocationTech has offered to cover losses and promising
payments on par with the best payments from past FOSS4G's. The
numbers are based on a conservative budget. When you also
factor that LocationTech has sponsored in which money has
flowed to OSGeo, your claims LocationTech is setting sights on
OSGeo income are even more ridiculous.<br>
</li>
<li>As Jody & others have noted, the Tour is something that
was born out of LocationTech. It is inclusive to any who want
to participate. The FAQ covers why LocationTech members &
projects care about FOSS4G, and it's very reasonable.<br>
</li>
</ul>
It's worth saying that people involved with LocationTech have also
been involved with OSGeo for some time. Your efforts to portray
them as outsiders is bogus. They are as welcome as anyone else to
participate.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure what else to say. It's such shame to have this be
needlessly misrepresented.<br>
<br>
Andrea<br>
<br>
On 12/11/15 21:58, Jeff McKenna wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5644FD80.90502@gatewaygeomatics.com"
type="cite">Hi Cameron,
<br>
<br>
I am also glad to speak of this publicly, this is a very important
topic.
<br>
<br>
I have been thinking more and more about Rob's response (thank you
so much Rob for taking the time to speak with me on that). I will
speak honestly here again, and I don't mean to offend:
<br>
<br>
I am now left with a realization that, what I always thought of
LocationTech as created to help commercially-friendly geospatial
software, is wrong. I always just assumed that they filled a nice
hole in the equation, by focusing on business needs. As was
pointed out to me today, their goals now are in fact the exact
same as OSGeo's. In fact, I have to really dig now for the
LocationTech's former tagline of "commercially-friendly.." on
their website, but I found the initial press releases for
LocationTech and there it is in the second sentence, and then
entire paragraphs on that goal. Did something change there that I
missed?
<br>
<br>
So now, yes, I am confused.
<br>
<br>
And no wonder that, from those initial 2012/2013 press releases
from LocationTech, fast forward to 2015 and they are contacting
each of our 3 bidding teams for FOSS4G 2017, I'm left with a sense
of surprise and shock. The overlap exists, we are the same
foundation, and, to make matters more pressing, LocationTech has
politely declined any interest in creating their own global event
for their community, and set their sights on OSGeo's only real
source of revenue and global publicity, our yearly FOSS4G event.
Now the pressure is on, as this 2017 discussion involves huge
money, finances, brands, people's jobs, two communities, and our
beloved FOSS4G event that we have painfully built to be a global
brand. And yes passions are flowing, strong words of "fear",
"bullying", "muck" are being dropped, and I have no doubt someone
soon will say "inclusive" or "exclusive", and then "code of
conduct", oh let's not forget "trademark" and even "lawyer" (to be
honest, in the past week I've heard each of these words about this
topic). It's all an absolute mess, if you ask my opinion.
<br>
<br>
My vision is to work with foundations and organizations all around
the world, locally or globally. OSGeo has done a great job on
this, through our (admittedly slow process for some people) of
MoUs, and building those relationships through designated
committees or special sessions at FOSS4G events.
<br>
<br>
This sudden thrust of LocationTech, by contacting each of our 3
bidders for 2017, is very calculated on their side, but on OSGeo's
side, this is a hard pill to swallow so fast.
<br>
<br>
I actually don't think it is OSGeo that should be the ones talking
now. We haven't changed, we have always put on FOSS4G each year,
moving around the globe. We put community first and foremost, our
community is very strong. I think our community is what attracts
LocationTech to OSGeo, why they strategically contacted each 2017
bidders, but I'd love to hear it from their mouths.
<br>
<br>
So I don't believe it is OSGeo that should be the ones explaining
ourselves now. I think this is the time for LocationTech to
explain their vision, how it has changed over the years, and how
it sees itself in the ecosystem, because OSGeo has been around now
a long time and their is no confusion about OSGeo.
<br>
<br>
In regards to the current situation, I wish we could start with an
MoU, work slowly on building a relationship, do not strategically
contact bidders or groups on either side, but work together on
building this ecosystem - maybe offering each other a "topic talk"
extended session at each of our events, maybe discussing becoming
a sustaining sponsor of each other's foundation, maybe having a
shared "working group" on this involving both LocationTech and
OSGeo board members.
<br>
<br>
I've done a lot of writing the last couple of days. I hope this
at least helps explain what is on my mind.
<br>
<br>
Oh, as some privately enjoy writing to me and saying I am wrong,
well yes, I am often wrong, but at least I am speaking publicly,
and trying so hard always to make sure that OSGeo and FOSS4G are
properly represented.
<br>
<br>
-jeff
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015-11-12 4:04 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Jeff, Venka, Jody, Rob,
<br>
<br>
Thanks for initiating this discussion and starting to put ideas
out for
<br>
public discussion.
<br>
<br>
Jeff, Venka, I get the impression from your emails that you are
<br>
concerned that LocationTech might "steal" community mind-share,
and in
<br>
particular take control of key OSGeo tasks such as FOSS4G and in
the
<br>
process change focus of FOSS4G into a more commercial event,
which
<br>
increases prices, and looses core community driven focus. Am I
right? Or
<br>
could you please clarify.
<br>
<br>
For the record, at the time I was disappointed at the time that
Location
<br>
Tech was created, and the functionality of Location Tech didn't
get
<br>
created under the umbrella of OSGeo. However both organisations
exist
<br>
now, and I can see that in moving forward that both
organisations can
<br>
exist successfully together and complement each other. (+1 to
Rob's
<br>
comments).
<br>
<br>
A few years back, when both Jeff and I were on the board, we
co-authored
<br>
"Board Priorities" [1]. (Ok, I did a lot of writing, but the
board did
<br>
contribute and sign off on it). Prior boards have similarly
outlined
<br>
OSGeo's priorities which have been embedded in our official
documents.
<br>
The "Board Priorities" include focus on OSGeo acting as a "low
capital,
<br>
volunteer focused organisation", and acknowledge that a the role
of the
<br>
"high capital" business model is better accomplished by
LocationTech.
<br>
<br>
Jeff, Venka, Jody and others on the board, what is your vision
for
<br>
OSGeo's future direction, and in particular, what is your vision
for a
<br>
future relationship with Location Tech? Should OSGeo revise our
focus
<br>
and goals? It might help to start by being specific. What should
OSGeo
<br>
take responsibility for? What should Location Tech take
responsibility
<br>
for? Are the organisations appropriately structured and
resourced to
<br>
take on that responsibility? If not, what should change to make
that happen?
<br>
<br>
With regards to private (and threatening emails), I suggest
replying
<br>
with something like:
<br>
"Thanks for your comments, you have some valid concerns. I'd
like to
<br>
respond to your suggestions publicly so others can join in and
we can
<br>
deal with your suggestions appropriately. Is it ok if I do so?"
<br>
If you don't get the ok, don't deal with the suggestion. But I
suggest
<br>
refrain from implication of bullying as it implies that
LocationTech is
<br>
playing dirty tactics, which reflects badly on LocationTech and
OSGeo as
<br>
it suggests that the two organisations are unable to resolve
issues
<br>
professionally. (I'm hoping that mentioned "bullying" is just a
case of
<br>
some people getting a bit more passionate that maybe they
should).
<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron
<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities</a>
<br>
<br>
On 13/11/2015 3:53 am, Rob Emanuele wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Jeff,
<br>
<br>
You are right, commercial-friendliness certainly does play a
part in
<br>
LocationTech. The way I've seen that enacted is by the use of
the
<br>
Eclipse Foundation's legal department to ensure that the
projects
<br>
which are supported by LocationTech are declared by a legal
team to be
<br>
free of proprietary or wrongly-licensed code. In this way,
commercial
<br>
entities can use the projects with some assurance that they
will not
<br>
be sued down the line for code that was not actually open in
the way
<br>
they thought it was.
<br>
<br>
Also, there is a steering committee that makes decisions about
how the
<br>
budget will be used. The budget mainly consists of member
company's
<br>
dues. The members of the steering committee are decided by
membership
<br>
level (large membership gets representation on the steering
committee)
<br>
as well as a lower-membership level elected committee. There
is also
<br>
representation by the developers, who vote independently of
any
<br>
company and are there to represent the committers on the
project. For
<br>
more information, you can read through some links here:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.locationtech.org/charter">https://www.locationtech.org/charter</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.locationtech.org/election2015">https://www.locationtech.org/election2015</a>
<br>
<br>
In practice, as a maintainer of an open source project and
developer,
<br>
what LocationTech has meant to me is support for my project in
ways
<br>
that are not centered around business. To me it's been a place
where
<br>
I've gotten to collaborate with similar open source projects
and have
<br>
my project be promoted through events and other channels; for
instance
<br>
I participate in Google Summer of Code and Facebook Open
Academy as a
<br>
mentor through the Eclipse Foundation. Perhaps these are needs
that
<br>
can also be served by OSGeo, but they have in practice been
met by
<br>
LocationTech. From my perspective as a project lead and open
source
<br>
developer, that there are multiple channels that can
potentially
<br>
support me and my project is a great thing and signs of a
healthy domain.
<br>
<br>
I did not start LocationTech. So for me it's not a question
of, why
<br>
should LocationTech be created when there is already OSGeo;
<br>
LocationTech already exists, and I don't think it's up to me
to
<br>
question it's existence. Nor do I think it's a useful exercise
to
<br>
question the existence of something that clearly has support
and is
<br>
supporting others. I can only decide which organizations I
believe in
<br>
and support, and what I can get out of those organizations as
far as
<br>
them supporting me. So on a personal level, my thoughts are
that both
<br>
OSGeo and LocationTech are good organizations. I'd like to
find ways
<br>
to support both organizations, and find ways both
organizations can
<br>
support me and my project.
<br>
<br>
On a more general level, I'm against centralization. Having
diversity
<br>
in governance structures, funding models and support channels
is a
<br>
good thing, and I don't want there to be only one "true"
organization
<br>
that I can look to for support. However, like I mentioned, the
ideal
<br>
would be that those organizations could figure out how to use
their
<br>
difference skill sets to work together on making the community
as a
<br>
whole move forward. And that is what I am hoping OSGeo and
<br>
LocationTech can do (as well as any other related
organizations).
<br>
<br>
Jody did a talk at FOSS4G NA 2015 on some of the differences
between
<br>
LocationTech and OSGeo, I recommend it:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/sdpEa6XdQEo">https://youtu.be/sdpEa6XdQEo</a>
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
Rob
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jeff McKenna
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com">jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com"><mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com></a>>
<br>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi Rob,
<br>
<br>
Thank you for your very thoughtful response. You
summarize the
<br>
situation very well. I think talking openly like this on
this
<br>
topic, is the only way to make this all work.
<br>
<br>
It sounds like I am wrong about LocationTech's goals; at
the same
<br>
time then, if that is the case, that LocationTech is not
about
<br>
commerce (doesn't "commercially friendly" encourage
business
<br>
interest?), then what was the need to create a separate
new
<br>
foundation, also focused on growing Open Source geospatial
software?
<br>
<br>
I hope we can speak openly here Rob, I do not mean any
disrespect
<br>
to you personally or to LocationTech (some take it
personal).
<br>
Please share here the reasons you see to have 2
foundations
<br>
focused on the same goal.
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
<br>
-jeff
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015-11-12 11:37 AM, Rob Emanuele wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi Jeff,
<br>
<br>
I'm sorry to hear you are being bullied in private
messages. It is
<br>
perhaps best to bring in the Code of Conduct committee
to help
<br>
handle
<br>
this; direct threats and private bulling tactics seem
in
<br>
violation with
<br>
the CoC, and there should be steps taken to ensure
that our
<br>
community
<br>
doesn't have bulling in our midst that goes
unaddressed.
<br>
<br>
I'm disappointed that you take LocationTech's core
goal as "to
<br>
promote
<br>
business and give those businesses a stage". Your
point of
<br>
view and
<br>
behavior on the lists makes more sense knowing that,
though;
<br>
if you
<br>
believe that LocationTech is really about promoting
the
<br>
businesses, and
<br>
not the greater community, then having LocationTech
involved
<br>
in the
<br>
FOSS4G conferences would diminish the non-business
community
<br>
members'
<br>
role in the conference, which would be a Bad thing.
However,
<br>
as a member
<br>
of the LocationTech PMC and someone who was/is
involved in the
<br>
FOSS4G NA
<br>
2015 and FOSS4G NA 2016 process, as well as someone
involved
<br>
in the
<br>
FOSS4G 2017 Philadelphia bid, I want to assure you
that is not
<br>
the case.
<br>
<br>
There is real focus and real work being done at
LocationTech
<br>
to help the
<br>
community of developers and users of FOSS4G. In this
instance
<br>
I'm using
<br>
FOSS4G for what the acronym actually means, Free and
Open Source
<br>
Software for Geospatial, not referring to the
conference that has
<br>
captured that name. Both LocationTech and OSGeo exist
to
<br>
support FOSS4G,
<br>
and the greater community (greater then both of those
<br>
organizations)
<br>
that use and develop FOSS4G. There are differences in
the
<br>
organizations
<br>
for sure, and I think highlighting those differences
and really
<br>
understanding how they serve the community in
different ways is
<br>
important. The ideal scenario that I see is that both
<br>
organizations
<br>
would use those differences to collaborate and have a
<br>
sum-greater-than-it's-parts type of support system for
FOSS4G.
<br>
Instead,
<br>
we have a situation where there's distrust, finger
pointing, and
<br>
political "power plays" against each other. We have
the
<br>
president of one
<br>
of the organizations characterizing the core goal of
the other
<br>
organization in a dangerously wrong way. We have
decisions and
<br>
discussions about a million dollar revenue generating
<br>
conference focused
<br>
on that million dollars, rather then how to ensure
that
<br>
conference does
<br>
the best job possible at supporting and pushing
forward the
<br>
community.
<br>
We have the precious resource that is the energy of
volunteers
<br>
being
<br>
spent on political infighting rather than on
collaboration towards
<br>
serving the community. I'm not sure the best path
forward for
<br>
this, but
<br>
I want to declare that the situation as I see it is
bad for the
<br>
community, collaboration between OSGeo and
LocationTech would
<br>
be good
<br>
for the community, and I hope as a whole we can move
towards
<br>
that better
<br>
future.
<br>
<br>
I hear your concerns for the price of the FOSS4G NA
tickets,
<br>
though I'll
<br>
point out to people who are following along that it's
not as
<br>
simple as a
<br>
flat $1000 dollar rate. I encourage you to look at the
<br>
registration
<br>
pricing breakdown when it's published for FOSS4G NA
2016, be
<br>
sure to
<br>
apply for a non-corporate pass if you will not be
reimbursed by a
<br>
company, and to apply for a scholarship if the cost is
still
<br>
too high.
<br>
Also, if you are giving a talk, registration is free,
so
<br>
please submit!
<br>
The Call For Proposals is now open
<br>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp"><https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp">https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp</a>).
<br>
Jeff, your presence was missed at FOSS4G NA 2015 and I
hope
<br>
that you can
<br>
come to Raleigh for FOSS4G NA 2016.
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
Rob
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Jeff McKenna
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com">jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com"><mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com></a>
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com">mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com"><mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com></a>>>
<br>
<br>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
On 2015-11-12 7:01 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have gotten a number of private emails
expressing
<br>
concerns about
<br>
LocationTech being involved in several of the
foss4g
<br>
bids. I
<br>
guess I had
<br>
the opposite concern last year when there was
the
<br>
joint OSGeo /
<br>
LocationTech foss4gna conference. I was kind
of
<br>
embarrassed our
<br>
behavior
<br>
as a community - would prefer to see us as
welcoming
<br>
and supportive
<br>
(especially as we had a first time organizer
that
<br>
could use our
<br>
support).
<br>
<br>
Hi Jody,
<br>
<br>
I am very glad that you brought this up publicly.
Lately I
<br>
too have
<br>
received very disturbing direct emails, containing
threats
<br>
of "if
<br>
this happens you watch" "karma you watch yourself"
"if we
<br>
lose you
<br>
watch out" and direct bullying tactics, for
speaking my
<br>
mind on this
<br>
issue. The same people sending these threats will
not speak
<br>
publicly on this, so I have asked them to stop
sending me
<br>
these
<br>
messages, but the messages continue, so I have
stopped
<br>
answering
<br>
them. These are "power-play" emails sent directly
to me,
<br>
but I will
<br>
tell them here publicly, bullying me will not stop
me from
<br>
speaking
<br>
openly about OSGeo's one event all year, the
global
<br>
FOSS4G. (for
<br>
those not following the 2017 conference
discussions, you
<br>
would have
<br>
to read a long thread to get caught up
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Call-to-discuss-FOSS4G-2017-proposals-prior-to-voting-td5234235.html">http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Call-to-discuss-FOSS4G-2017-proposals-prior-to-voting-td5234235.html</a>).<br>
<br>
As someone just wrote last night on another list,
likely
<br>
there would
<br>
be no one else that has attended more FOSS4G
events, regional,
<br>
global, anything, than myself. I make a point of
going to
<br>
a FOSS4G
<br>
event, to help grow the local community, no matter
what
<br>
size of the
<br>
event or where it is. Lately in my FOSS4G travels
I have
<br>
noticed a
<br>
return to our FOSS4G roots, where the popular
events are
<br>
very low
<br>
cost, aimed at developers, users, students,
researchers,
<br>
and the
<br>
smaller companies trying to make a living (a great
recent
<br>
example is
<br>
the FOSS4G-Como event this past July). Getting
back to
<br>
the topic of
<br>
your message: I too have been embarrassed by
recent
<br>
FOSS4G-NorthAmerica events; I was shocked to see
the 1,000 USD
<br>
registration fee there.
<br>
<br>
But I was not too upset, because no one is
traveling the small
<br>
FOSS4Gs like me to see the difference, and I
didn't see
<br>
complaints
<br>
voiced from the local NorthAmerican community.
LocationTech
<br>
involved in FOSS4G-NA is a good thing, to promote
business
<br>
and give
<br>
those businesses a stage; the core goal of
LocationTech.
<br>
<br>
However now we are in the process for deciding the
global
<br>
FOSS4G
<br>
event for 2017, OSGeo's flagship event, attended
by the
<br>
international community, and we must be very
careful.
<br>
Working with
<br>
foundations is good (hence all of OSGeo's great
MoUs), and
<br>
I'll use
<br>
the upcoming example that the 2016 team is
considering, giving
<br>
LocationTech a 90 minute slot in the program for
their
<br>
projects (and
<br>
the same for OSGeo, UN, likely OGC, and other
<br>
organizations). This
<br>
is a wonderful way for OSGeo's FOSS4G event to
involve other
<br>
organizations. I hope that LocationTech will also
give
<br>
OSGeo a 90
<br>
minute slot in their big conference someday as
well; this
<br>
would be
<br>
exactly what I see as best-case scenario.
<br>
<br>
On the other hand, not signing an MoU, and then
just
<br>
contacting all
<br>
of our 2017 bidders, is quite a different method
to get to the
<br>
table. Instead of a long-standing MoU agreement
that would
<br>
foster
<br>
the relationship throughout the years, as we have
with so many
<br>
organizations, we are faced with a decision now
that
<br>
involves both
<br>
foundations and 1,000,000 USD (the annual FOSS4G
event
<br>
generates a
<br>
lot of revenue, making this very attractive to
professional
<br>
conference companies all over the world, I was
phoned
<br>
yesterday by
<br>
one from Europe, for example). The money is
there, huge
<br>
money, and
<br>
huge exposure for these companies. And their jobs
are on
<br>
the line,
<br>
in their minds. Hence this situation we are
forced to
<br>
deal with
<br>
now, and these nasty private messages being sent
to me.
<br>
<br>
Let's try to remain positive though, as we have 3
great
<br>
bids for
<br>
FOSS4G 2017, and a solid team working hard already
to make
<br>
FOSS4G-2016 in Bonn another amazing event. OSGeo
has
<br>
never been so
<br>
active and vibrant as so many initiatives and
location
<br>
chapters grow
<br>
all around the world.
<br>
<br>
Thanks for listening, and thank you Jody for
bringing this
<br>
topic to
<br>
the public lists.
<br>
<br>
-jeff
<br>
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Jeff McKenna
<br>
President, OSGeo
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>