My MapServer Foundation thoughts / Auto Desk Mapserver Enterprise

[Stephen Clark]

I must add my comments as a person that has used / developed application
in many of the web mapping products listed here on the list for many
years.

I first must say that I agree with Ed McNierney and am a bit more
pessimistic about the future of the original MapServer product.

I feel that Autodesk took the great Mapserver name brand and are taking
credit for the Enterprise edition when it appears that this product is
not really a Mapserver product but an Autodesk product.

I think the original Mapserver product should be named the "Mapserver
Enterprise" product and Autodesk product should be noted as an extension
to Mapserver. 

Quoted from below:
As far as we here in our group see, the naming is terrible. I have an 
idea... let our product be "MapServer Enterprise" (as loath as I am to 
elongate the name), and let Autodesk call their product the "Autodesk 
Plug-in/Extension for MapServer Enterprise."

I also feel that in the next few years that by giving the Mapserver name
away to AutoDesk you have essentially moved the once great Mapserver
product to a platypus recognition as a "dinosaur in the Web Mapping
product area."



Stephen




-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Puneet Kishor
Sent: November 29, 2005 5:30 AM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] My MapServer Foundation thoughts

Tyler Mitchell wrote:

> In a nutshell, several groups and individuals have agreed that a
foundation is 
> a good idea and they want to see it move forward.  

Yes, the foundation is a great idea. I believe so, and, I think, Ed 
echoed the same sentiment.

> All that's been decided is that there will be a foundation and 
> that Autodesk wants to contribute code to it.  

The problem seems to lie with how it came about, and with some of the 
result --

It was done in 'secrecy,' or so it seems. MapServer is all about 
community, and the community was note roped in. Just having a poll, or 
an animated list discussion, or even a half-a-day discussion at a 
MapServer meeting, whatever, would have helped tremendously. Sure, there

would have been detractors even then, but know one could have said, 
"Holy crap! where did that come from?" I remember when we all first met 
at the first MUM... we were all putting faces to the names we had known 
from the list for a long while. It was like a large family get-together.

Less than 200 folks, but there was joy in seeing and "recognizing" each 
other. This secretive seeming maneuver has led to bickering. It should 
have been not so... put the 'open' back in open source, because OS is 
not just about the source, it is being open about everything.


> Autodesk's Role
> The assumption that Autodesk has somehow rolled in and taken the best
seat in 
> the house is far from the truth.  We debated the issues such as naming
and 
> branding.  Our group became comfortable with the ideas and thought
they could 
> at least serve as a starting place for community discussion.  There
was no 
> name stealing, these were mutually debated and agreed upon ideas.  

see, here is the problem... who is 'we'? who was in 'our group'? It 
would have been nice if publicly the community (which is mostly the 
denizens of these lists), had backed the 'group' and said, "Hey, great! 
go ahead." It is all about the process.

As far as we here in our group see, the naming is terrible. I have an 
idea... let our product be "MapServer Enterprise" (as loath as I am to 
elongate the name), and let Autodesk call their product the "Autodesk 
Plug-in/Extension for MapServer Enterprise."

That way, the focus will be very clear, and the traditionally MapServer 
developers and users will continue to work on/with the product they 
love, and those who want to use the Autodesk Plug-in for M2EE will do so

as well.