MapServer Foundation thoughts and reactions

[Puneet Kishor]

I must underscore that I am not alluding to any conspiracy of any sort. 
I am only alluding to the facts that --

1. Putting commercial entries as sponsors of opensource, Autodesk or any 
other, in the manner that it seems like in the case of MapServer, takes 
something away from the grassroots community aspect of it all. DMS is 
fairly innocuous here, and I have little reason to doubt them. I have 
known them for several years, and some of them are my friends. Others 
may rightly or wrongly feel differently. I can certainly understand Ed's 
point of view given his position as a business owner of a similar scale. 
But, does Autodesk being in the fray preclude, antagonize, or even 
attract other similar sized commercial entities? How will ESRI or 
Intergraph or Mapinfo or even Oracle and/or Microsoft (all with 
interests in GIS and mapping) react?

2. The nomenclature does make it seem like the real MapServer has gotten 
the short shrift. First there was 'classic' or 'lite.' Then came 
'professional.' Now Enterprise seems to be all the rage. I could imagine 
M2EE (MapServer 2 Enterprise Edition), but MapServer Cheetah just 
doesn't have the same feel other than providing a convenient pencil 
cover art for the next O'Reilly mapping-made-easy edition. It does seem 
like Autodesk is making out here on the goodwill established by 
MapServer. If not a fork of the source, it certainly will be a fork of 
the energies. I highly doubt the same folks will be able to contribute 
to both causes with equal vigor.

On the other hand, yes, legal indemnification might be worthwhile 
attraction. Does Autodesk really provide that? To what extent? I haven't 
done my due diligence on all aspects of the deal.



Lowell.Filak wrote:
> Just as a side-note I can't envision UMN, DM Solutions, & Autodesk 
> lumped together in the discussion. While I understand the points made 
> and responsibility must be shouldered. I also know that DM Solutions & 
> UMN has always put Mapserver first.
> I think Steve alluded to the legal protection aspect that comes with 
> Autodesk. Wasn't it a couple of years ago that a copyright holder 
> threatened to sue the world of internet mapping? We thought it was a 
> joke but...
> Is it possible that DMS & UMN felt the need (pressure) to do it NOW 
> (aka. our next generation app is ready and we need to beat Goliath to 
> market or else we pull out of negotiations)?
> Lowell
> Puneet Kishor writes:
>> Greetings all (and Ed). I re-joined the list today on coming across 
>> the Autodesk newsblurb. My immediate feeling was, "If you can't beat 
>> 'em..." The "you" was Autodesk, and "'em" was you-know-who. That was 
>> followed by a little bit of giddyness, as it meant that my beloved 
>> MapServer was going high profile. I immediately darted off a 
>> congratulatory note to the pater of MapServer. But, the feeling has 
>> worn off; and Ed's very thoughtful (and wordy) note below has 
>> reinforced some of the diffidence that I feel.
>> First, I do feel that MapServer seems to get the second place here. 
>> Everyone and their janitor wants "Enterprise." This Cheetah bullshit 
>> ain't gonna work. Makes MS-C look sound like a hobby-kit.
>> Second, Autodesk gets a big, free PR thing out of it, and it doesn't 
>> even work on a Mac... I mean, give me a break.
>> I am all for the foundation, have been from the day I chimed in my 
>> support at Ottawa... we all wanted to know where to send the check of 
>> support, and a foundation would have been such a recipient.
>> This foundation is a bit of a squib, unless one's shilling for Autodesk.
>> That said, I am not as pessimistic as Ed might sound... yes, there 
>> never will be another "founder" other than those involved, and yes, 
>> personally, I would rather think of UMN as a founder instead of any 
>> other commercial entity. But, the key is to find a way out/around 
>> this, and get the MapServer brand as de-commercialized as possible.
>> And, for heaven's sake, lets get the Enterprise moniker.
>> Ed McNierney wrote:
>>> Folks -
>>> This morning I sent a few comments about the MapServer Foundation
>>> off-list to Steve Lime, and (at my request) he forwarded them on to some
>>> of the other folks involved.  After a comments by a few folks there were
>>> requests that I post my messages to the broader community.  This post is
>>> an attempt to do that in a consolidated way.  I apologize for being
>>> wordy, but there's a lot to say.
>>> I've been a member of the MapServer "community" for several years now.
>>> The Foundation project is the first time I can ever recall there being a
>>> conscious, ongoing, and deliberate attempt to exclude most of the
>>> community from a discussion of significance about MapServer.  A small
>>> number of people - some of whom are dedicated developers who've
>>> contributed far more than I ever have - decided to enter into
>>> discussions that included two commercial firms (DM Solutions and
>>> Autodesk).  No one else got to participate, and the work was
>>> deliberately kept secret.  Doesn't sound like much of an "open" project
>>> to me.
>>> A MapServer Foundation is a very, very good idea.  This MapServer
>>> Foundation has gotten off to a very, very bad start.  I find myself in
>>> the position of being quite reluctant to support this instance of a
>>> concept I eagerly wish to support.
>>> I think I should start by explaining why I think a MapServer Foundation
>>> is a very good idea (as opposed to what others think, even though we
>>> generally seem to agree).  MapServer has been well-served by the
>>> technical and development community that supports it.  It has mainly
>>> lacked many of the things that make a "program" a "product".  It needs
>>> better documentation, easier setup and sample sites, product summaries
>>> and literature, feature/benefit brochures and comparisons, benchmarking
>>> tests, presentations, a coordinated trade show/conference plan, better
>>> marketing, directories of consultants, reference sites, etc.  I don't
>>> mean to denigrate any of the efforts made along any of these lines, but
>>> I think we all know there are things you can currently get from
>>> commercial vendors that aren't available with MapServer.  A Foundation
>>> would be a great way to provide these things.  It wouldn't need to get
>>> in the way of the development work, and could complement it by filling
>>> in the blanks.
>>> All of that takes money.  A MapServer Foundation needs funding to do
>>> these things.  Fortunately, there are several subsets of the MapServer
>>> community that are in a position to contribute funding.  There are
>>> commercial users of MapServer (folks like me, GlobeXplorer, etc.),
>>> commercial developers/consultancies like DM Solutions and others, and
>>> the government and educational users who tend to not have much money to
>>> spend but can usually contribute something.
>>> To date, organizations interested in financial support for MapServer
>>> have been limited to funding specific software development tasks.  The
>>> pace of that development has been such that every time I raise an idea
>>> about a project TopoZone could fund, it seems that someone else has
>>> gotten there first.  I could have chipped in money for "future
>>> development", but there was no place to put it - it didn't make sense to
>>> just send Frank or Daniel or Steve a check and tell them to try to spend
>>> it somehow.  And I would rather fund the "other stuff" than fund feature
>>> development - there's more of a need for it.  A Foundation could fix
>>> that, by providing a place that takes in revenue from members and
>>> sponsors, and uses that revenue to fund projects - probably
>>> non-development projects as I mentioned above, since those won't get
>>> funded otherwise.  The OGC membership model is a relevant and simple
>>> example of this sort of thing.
>>> So what does the Foundation need to do that?  It needs to be open and
>>> inclusive, eligible to all to participate as peers or as peers within
>>> certain classes of membership.  It needs to be independent of any
>>> particular sponsor, and it also needs to APPEAR to be independent.  It
>>> needs to have a clear mission and it needs to simplify and clarify
>>> things for its members and for its constituent base.  It needs to be
>>> seen as the unswerving voice dedicated to the support of MapServer and
>>> nothing else.
>>> Today's announcement missed those goals by a wide mark.  Some of those
>>> errors can be corrected, but some we'll have to live with forever.  And
>>> most of them could have been avoided by the kind of open, inclusive
>>> discussion we've always had in the MapServer community - until now.
>>> Supporting the MapServer Foundation is a great PR and marketing
>>> opportunity.  It appears that Autodesk and DM Solutions were extremely
>>> aware of that, and made sure that they didn't have to share that
>>> opportunity with anyone else.  Being a "founder" is very important, and
>>> you've already seen Autodesk and DM Solutions take advantage of that
>>> through their own press releases today.  No other company will *ever*
>>> get that chance - the press doesn't really care about the next few
>>> companies to sign on.  When I created TopoZone in 1999, it was
>>> incredibly important to be the first topographic map site on the Web,
>>> because the PR value was so great.  I suspect very few folks remember
>>> who launched the second one....
>>> Companies will be attracted to sponsor the Foundation because of that PR
>>> value.  Unfortunately, that value's gone and nothing will get it back.
>>> I'm certainly a potential financial supporter of the Foundation, but I'm
>>> also running a business.  I can't simply give money away, but I can
>>> spend it on things that give me PR and marketing value.  I could spend a
>>> pretty substantial (for me) sum as an annual commitment to the
>>> Foundation.  I am now a *lot* less inclined to provide that support to
>>> this Foundation, because the value (in PR and marketing terms) is a
>>> whole lot less than it would have been if I could have been invited to
>>> the party.  I'm certainly welcome to sign on and take a seat right up
>>> near the front - as long as it isn't in the front row.
>>> I don't say that because I'm personally miffed at being excluded - I'm
>>> just TopoZone.  I say that because we'll never know how many firms and
>>> how much financial support could have been raised if someone had tried
>>> to solicit input and support in an open, inclusive way.  There are lots
>>> of us out here.  I've been told that it's "incredibly important" that
>>> the Foundation be seen as vendor-neutral and that it not be at the mercy
>>> of a single funder's contributions.  Sounds good, but don't tell me that
>>> now - those are both reasons to solicit a larger number of contributing
>>> founding members rather than selling the whole package to Autodesk.
>>> It's not easy to undo that; the Foundation is clearly already seen as an
>>> Autodesk initiative by the press (in part because Autodesk has tried to
>>> make that point clear) and not many firms are interested in throwing
>>> money at Autodesk - they've got more of it than I do.
>>> My second huge concern is the branding/product lineup for the
>>> Foundation.  I woke up this morning to two MapServers where we had one
>>> before.  One of them has the impressive-sounding name "MapServer
>>> Enterprise" while the other is currently named after a large pussycat
>>> but may or may not be open to the possibility of being named after a
>>> different mammal.  There's no doubt in the potential customer's mind
>>> which one is the grown-up, field-tested, production-ready, scalable,
>>> capable system.  Unfortunately, they're thinking of the wrong one.
>>> Branding really matters.  It's very important.  Tyler Mitchell says so,
>>> too, on the new MapServer site.  Autodesk has zillions of people who
>>> know that very, very well.  They just bought a great brand and MapServer
>>> suddenly managed to take a back seat to itself, something I would have
>>> thought anatomically impossible.  They've managed to appropriate a
>>> well-respected brand name and take center stage with it.  Autodesk's
>>> press release takes advantage of that ambiguity by introducing Steve
>>> Lime as the "creator of MapServer" without saying which one they're
>>> talking about!  Speaking of press releases, in an effort like this it is
>>> common for all founding members to see and sign off on each other's
>>> press releases in advance, something which appears (from some developer
>>> comments) to not have happened here.  This is PR 101 stuff - if you
>>> don't try to keep what you're doing a secret, you might get helpful
>>> advice.
>>> The same is true, by the way, about the questions raised on Autodesk's
>>> patent policy.  This should NOT be an open question *after* the
>>> announcement - Autodesk's patent portfolio and their defense of it are
>>> well-known.  It should have been one of the first questions raised and
>>> answered.  Once the Foundation's plans were made public it only took a
>>> few hours to bring it to everyone's attention - remember the benefits of
>>> open development?
>>> The "MapServer Enterprise" product just got inserted into the MapServer
>>> family by decree.  Customers know very well that when they see two
>>> similar products side-by-side, usually due to a merger or acquisition,
>>> they sit back and wait to see which one gets killed off.  This usually
>>> has the effect of discouraging adoption of BOTH products, because
>>> customers don't know which one to implement and don't want to make the
>>> wrong choice.  Believe me, I've been a CTO standing up in front of
>>> customers in that situation more than once - they don't believe you can
>>> serve two masters, and they're right.
>>> Does the Apache Foundation offer two Web servers?  Apache Enterprise and
>>> Apache Other?
>>> Can't kill off MapServer, you say?  Perhaps not in a technical sense,
>>> but if there's a MapServer Foundation and a MapServer Enterprise, who's
>>> going to notice if that other thingy doesn't get the same amount of
>>> attention?  Perhaps the platypus is indeed a good choice, as it may
>>> belong with the nearly-extinct monotremes.  You can't kill the MapServer
>>> code, but you can certainly kill the brand.  Please don't confuse the
>>> two.
>>> Why was the Foundation "announced" when it apparently doesn't actually
>>> exist?  It seems like today's announcement was designed primarily to
>>> maximize the PR value to DM Solutions and Autodesk - after all, the
>>> press got briefed about it before the rest of us did.  As far as I can
>>> tell, there isn't any foundation, but when we get one it's going to be
>>> great and open to all, because DM Solutions and UMN and Autodesk have
>>> all assured each other that it will be.  Each time I hear that "now's
>>> the time to participate", I cringe because I'm being told that by the
>>> exclusive group who deliberately prevented all of us from participating
>>> until they decided they had gotten what they needed out of it and it's
>>> now OK to let the rest of us inside.  The time to participate was last
>>> week, or last month, before anything got announced and before we were
>>> all handed the Foundation.  If the Foundation is really a genuinely open
>>> opportunity for us, then tell us that the inclusion of Autodesk's
>>> product isn't non-negotiable.  Do the rest of us get to insert
>>> MapServer-branded products whenever we want to?
>>> All of these problems were preventable.  All it would have taken was an
>>> open discussion of the proposal.  You get a lot of people spouting off,
>>> and then you find out who's really interested.  You find out how many
>>> commercial sponsors you can get and at what level of support.  You
>>> create what appears to the public as a truly open consortium that's
>>> worth watching, instead of one that triggers discussions about Autodesk.
>>> You demonstrate right from the start that you have a broad base of
>>> commercial support, with commercial firms from the USA, Canada, Europe,
>>> South America, Australia, etc.  What was the perceived benefit of
>>> keeping the process secret and exclusive?  Did someone threaten to pick
>>> up their marbles and go home?  You can often be surprised at how many
>>> folks are willing to contribute their own marbles when something like
>>> that happens - but you never know until you ask.
>>> The MapServer community really needs a Foundation to support it and to
>>> keep the product healthy and growing.  There are many examples of the
>>> creation of such consortia to draw from, both inside of and outside of
>>> the Open Source community.  It doesn't appear those examples were
>>> considered.  We really need a MapServer Foundation - I'm not at all sure
>>> that we need this one.
> 
>