MapServer Foundation thoughts and reactions

[Paul Spencer]

Thanks Gerry.

I must admit that I was mostly annoyed with Ed for what appeared to  
me as spreading FUD, and my comments (or lack thereof) reflect that.   
I find your summary targeted at the real issues at hand here, so  
perhaps it was just the length of Ed's comments that obscured their  
intent.

It is possible that I am being naive in trusting that ADSKs  
commitment is sincere, but I don't think so.  I certainly don't think  
there is any conspiracy to undermine the community, especially as  
that conspiracy would have to involve all the members of the MTSC ...

Cheers

Paul


On 29-Nov-05, at 11:31 AM, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:

> Paul,
>
> I hate to have to add fuel to the fire, but I feel I need to comment.
>
> Ed's comments were lengthy, but you managed to dismiss them in a  
> single sentence.  However, he's on-target about several key points.
>
> I recall, at the last MUM, the comments about a closed group to  
> better guide future releases.  However, in general, the process has  
> maintainted the appearance of openness and bugs were readily  
> discussed, as were feature additions.  This may, in retrospect,  
> have announced the initial closure of the organization.
>
> Mapserver has been a stellar community effort.  Locking down the  
> group, creating the Foundation, and springing it on this same  
> Community, has had a chilling effect.  Yesterday, with the initial  
> announcement, I was excited.  Today, having read the Open Letter  
> more closely, and the press releases, I now share the concerns Ed  
> so eloquently articulated.  I can't effect significant change on  
> the Foundation.  My University can't effect significant change... I  
> don't see a mechanism for my University to participate, save as a  
> user.
>
> I've been involved in organizations who morphed in this manner  
> before, and unfortunately, it's usually resulted in the  
> organization being taken over by the corporate partners.  There are  
> shining examples of this not happening: OGC's roots are in  
> corporate sponsorship but they've been refreshingly non-partisan...  
> although there's a tendancy to reflect a product as being OGC  
> compliant when it meets some subset of the testing... and the  
> rather staggering costs associated with official compliance  
> testing: Mapserver's not been tested recently, as I recall, for  
> this very reason.
>
> I, too, object to the terms "Mapserver [insert favorite animal  
> here]" and "Mapserver Enterprise" as the impression is the tool I  
> have been using so successfully, the one I've been promoting to my  
> ESRI-using colleagues, and where I've demonstrated often equal or  
> better performance, is a toy, and this newly advertised addition,  
> somewhat largish and hard to downlaod and implement initially, is  
> better, more secure, has an improved pedigree and is a real  
> "enterprise-ready" (note: ISO-9002 buzzword-compliant) product.   
> Oh... and yes, let's capitalize on the term Mapserver.
>
> So: I'm frustrated.  This isn't directed at you, Paul, but more at  
> the process and the participants who elected to keep this process a  
> secret from the Community whove been supportive in the past.  A  
> Community that would likely benefit from this concept in the  
> future.  But not a Community likely to benefit from an advertising  
> exercise for pure corporate gain.  I work for a University, and I  
> have several projects that depend on this technology.  I can't make  
> money off it. I can support its development periodically, and I can  
> provide thoughts and suggestions.  But where's the benefit for me  
> if I can't implement the product most likely to see the  
> improvements, and if I cannot create the working files for that  
> package because it requires a computer operating system that has  
> been deemed unsafe in our environment?  No, Virginia, I don't have  
> a spare Windows workstation.
>
> I don't know how to resolve this, or who will.  I do know I'm  
> disappointed at how all this came about, and my inability to effect  
> change.
>
> Respectfully,
> Gerry Creager
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>> Puneet,
>> re legal indemnification, I don't think the intention is for Autodesk
>> to provide that (directly).  Autodesk is funding the creation of a
>> separate legal entity (think Apache Foundation) and that legal entity
>> will be tasked with determining what it will provide and how.
>> Lowell, thanks for the support ...
>> Ed, I'm sorry that you feel this way but you certainly have the right
>> to express your opinion ...
>> Cheers
>> Paul
>> On 29-Nov-05, at 12:23 AM, Puneet Kishor wrote:
>>> 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.
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>> |Paul Spencer                           pspencer at dmsolutions.ca   |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>> |Applications & Software Development                              |
>> |DM Solutions Group Inc                 http://www.dmsolutions.ca/|
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> -- 
> Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
> Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University	
> Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578
> Page: 979.228.0173
> Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Paul Spencer                           pspencer at dmsolutions.ca   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Applications & Software Development                              |
|DM Solutions Group Inc                 http://www.dmsolutions.ca/|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+