<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Jeff,<br>
<br>
Again, you make statements like you have below about
me/LocationTech smoothly courting/calculated/etc going after
OSGeo's only source of revenue. Perhaps you would like to present
your evidence for making such negative statements? <br>
<br>
Bear in mind that the ample evidence to the contrary is public.
Dave & Robert have told their stories about how & why they
LocationTech as a conference organizer for their 2017 bids.
Michael Terner shared his story too. There was nothing untoward
involved, and everything has been talked about publicly.<br>
<br>
The budget details for those bids are public too and as generous
as a conservative budget allows. The payment is very much in line
with the best payments ever received from a FOSS4G, and OSGeo is
not on the hook for a loss should one occur.<br>
<br>
Making such assertions with no evidence to back them up, against
much evidence to the contrary is unfounded and very
unprofessional.<br>
<br>
The <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit">FAQ
we published</a> publicly makes the motives very clear. People
like myself, Dave McIlhagga, Jody Garnett, and many others have
been deeply involved in OSGeo & FOSS4G since the beginning in
many capacities. (so were the Founders of LocationTech for what
that's worth) All of what we have done is public record. We never
left the community. We care about FOSS4G and care how it is run.
We are valued members of the FOSS4G & OSGeo communities, have
equal right to participate, and not the invading outsiders you are
attempting to portray us as.<br>
<br>
Again, you imply something untoward regarding why LocationTech was
founded and exists. It was created & exists to fill a gap. And
3 years on it is doing a pretty good job of that. As I have said,
I am not aware of any harm to OSGeo that has come from
LocationTech. There was much goodness specified clearly in the FAQ
stating plainly how LocationTech has helped OSGeo. You are welcome
to share your evidence to the contrary.<br>
<br>
As just one more example we didn't put in the FAQ, after a very
successful FOSS4G NA 2015, $6K USD was paid to OSGeo from
LocationTech to help support it. The money was provided with no
strings attached for OSGeo to spend how it see's fit.<br>
<br>
Collaboration happens between OSGeo & LocationTech every day
without fuss. People shuffle back and forth across the imaginary
border without even thinking about it. It is one ecosystem.<br>
<br>
I wish you'd see & acknowledge the goodness and positive
things from LocationTech. At the very least, without any evidence
of anything negative, you should really stop.<br>
<br>
Andrea<br>
<br>
On 13/11/15 14:24, Jeff McKenna wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5645E488.8020806@gatewaygeomatics.com"
type="cite">Hi Andrea,
<br>
<br>
You seem to value the OSGeo community so much, so much in fact
that you would smoothly court all 3 of our bidders for OSGeo's
only source of revenue and publicity all year, our beloved global
FOSS4G event. It is true that it is "ridiculous", from an
organization that (apparently formerly) focused on commerce, to
ask OSGeo to pay you (90,000 USD), to take control of OSGeo's only
event (worth 1,000,000 USD), and then think that this is a fine
since you offer (my answer: a polite no thank you) of handling
losses for OSGeo's FOSS4G event, in maybe one of the strongest
regions for attendees in the world? If we are speaking of
commerce, this doesn't make sense.
<br>
<br>
I think Maxi said it well, that we all are trying to understand
your motives here. How about an MoU together, exchange of
official letters, big press release, creating a working group of
half LocationTech and half OSGeo board members, an exchange of
talks at each others events, become the sustaining sponsor of
OSGeo; instead, here we are.
<br>
<br>
If you value the OSGeo community so much, why would you create a
separate foundation with the exact same goals, and then later come
back to the other foundation saying "no, we love you. Give us the
right to run your event". Ha, pardon?
<br>
<br>
-jeff
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015-11-12 7:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Jeff,
<br>
<br>
It is really hard to discuss this topic because you make stuff
up. The
<br>
concerns stem from the fantasy rather than reality.
<br>
<br>
The FAQ produced recently
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit?usp=drive_web"><https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit?usp=drive_web></a>
<br>
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
<br>
result of LocationTech, and certainly not from any
official/intentional
<br>
actions. On the contrary, there's a nice body of ever growing
benefits.
<br>
<br>
Regarding your new claims:
<br>
<br>
* The press releases & charter for LocationTech have not
changed.
<br>
They're all still up where they always were and haven't been
<br>
modified. (seriously?!)
<br>
* LocationTech & OSGeo have had formal relations for some
time as Jody
<br>
notes. There is all kinds of collaboration happening
frequently and
<br>
people are fine with it.
<br>
* We gave many examples in the FAQ about LocationTech helping
OSGeo.
<br>
I'm not even sure that (positive list) was calculated
necessarily as
<br>
much as things that arise matter of course from the things
the group
<br>
does.
<br>
* The evidence is for all to see in the bid proposals,
LocationTech
<br>
has offered to cover losses and promising payments on par
with the
<br>
best payments from past FOSS4G's. The numbers are based on a
<br>
conservative budget. When you also factor that LocationTech
has
<br>
sponsored in which money has flowed to OSGeo, your claims
<br>
LocationTech is setting sights on OSGeo income are even more
ridiculous.
<br>
* As Jody & others have noted, the Tour is something that
was born out
<br>
of LocationTech. It is inclusive to any who want to
participate. The
<br>
FAQ covers why LocationTech members & projects care
about FOSS4G,
<br>
and it's very reasonable.
<br>
<br>
It's worth saying that people involved with LocationTech have
also been
<br>
involved with OSGeo for some time. Your efforts to portray them
as
<br>
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
<br>
needlessly misrepresented.
<br>
<br>
Andrea
<br>
<br>
On 12/11/15 21:58, Jeff McKenna wrote:
<br>
<blockquote 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
<br>
much Rob for taking the time to speak with me on that). I
will speak
<br>
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
<br>
LocationTech as created to help commercially-friendly
geospatial
<br>
software, is wrong. I always just assumed that they filled a
nice
<br>
hole in the equation, by focusing on business needs. As was
pointed
<br>
out to me today, their goals now are in fact the exact same as
<br>
OSGeo's. In fact, I have to really dig now for the
LocationTech's
<br>
former tagline of "commercially-friendly.." on their website,
but I
<br>
found the initial press releases for LocationTech and there it
is in
<br>
the second sentence, and then entire paragraphs on that goal.
Did
<br>
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
<br>
LocationTech, fast forward to 2015 and they are contacting
each of our
<br>
3 bidding teams for FOSS4G 2017, I'm left with a sense of
surprise and
<br>
shock. The overlap exists, we are the same foundation, and,
to make
<br>
matters more pressing, LocationTech has politely declined any
interest
<br>
in creating their own global event for their community, and
set their
<br>
sights on OSGeo's only real source of revenue and global
publicity,
<br>
our yearly FOSS4G event. Now the pressure is on, as this 2017
<br>
discussion involves huge money, finances, brands, people's
jobs, two
<br>
communities, and our beloved FOSS4G event that we have
painfully built
<br>
to be a global brand. And yes passions are flowing, strong
words of
<br>
"fear", "bullying", "muck" are being dropped, and I have no
doubt
<br>
someone soon will say "inclusive" or "exclusive", and then
"code of
<br>
conduct", oh let's not forget "trademark" and even "lawyer"
(to be
<br>
honest, in the past week I've heard each of these words about
this
<br>
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
<br>
world, locally or globally. OSGeo has done a great job on
this,
<br>
through our (admittedly slow process for some people) of MoUs,
and
<br>
building those relationships through designated committees or
special
<br>
sessions at FOSS4G events.
<br>
<br>
This sudden thrust of LocationTech, by contacting each of our
3
<br>
bidders for 2017, is very calculated on their side, but on
OSGeo's
<br>
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
<br>
now. We haven't changed, we have always put on FOSS4G each
year,
<br>
moving around the globe. We put community first and foremost,
our
<br>
community is very strong. I think our community is what
attracts
<br>
LocationTech to OSGeo, why they strategically contacted each
2017
<br>
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
<br>
ourselves now. I think this is the time for LocationTech to
explain
<br>
their vision, how it has changed over the years, and how it
sees
<br>
itself in the ecosystem, because OSGeo has been around now a
long time
<br>
and their is no confusion about OSGeo.
<br>
<br>
In regards to the current situation, I wish we could start
with an
<br>
MoU, work slowly on building a relationship, do not
strategically
<br>
contact bidders or groups on either side, but work together on
<br>
building this ecosystem - maybe offering each other a "topic
talk"
<br>
extended session at each of our events, maybe discussing
becoming a
<br>
sustaining sponsor of each other's foundation, maybe having a
shared
<br>
"working group" on this involving both LocationTech and OSGeo
board
<br>
members.
<br>
<br>
I've done a lot of writing the last couple of days. I hope
this at
<br>
least helps explain what is on my mind.
<br>
<br>
Oh, as some privately enjoy writing to me and saying I am
wrong, well
<br>
yes, I am often wrong, but at least I am speaking publicly,
and trying
<br>
so hard always to make sure that OSGeo and FOSS4G are properly
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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.
<br>
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
<br>
Source
<br>
Software for Geospatial, not referring to the
conference
<br>
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,
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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,
<br>
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
<br>
1,000 USD
<br>
registration fee there.
<br>
<br>
But I was not too upset, because no one is
traveling the
<br>
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,
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>