<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation thoughts and reactions</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText3073 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>"Autodesk first approached us
about their plans to open source their next<BR>generation of web mapping
technology -- and their desire to contribute<BR>to, and participate in the open
source community. Essentially they said,<BR>we want to be a part of this world
-- now how do we do it?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>And you replied, "You do it in an open,
inclusive way that opens the discussion to all stakeholders, not just a
self-selected few. You don't ask us to sign non-disclosure agreements and
deliberately exclude the majority of the community. We may be influential
and major contributors, but we're not the only ones and we don't own this
product. That's the way we do things in the open source community, so if
you want to be part of this world, that's the way it works."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Right?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2> -
Ed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed McNierney</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>TopoZone.com</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> UMN MapServer Users List on behalf of Dave
McIlhagga<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue 11/29/2005 8:11 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
MAPSERVER-USERS@LISTS.UMN.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS]
MapServer Foundation thoughts and reactions<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Hi everyone,<BR><BR>This has been quite a day of discussion and
events unfolding as anyone<BR>would expect from a vibrant user community. It is
another great reminder<BR>of how passionate and committed we all are to
MapServer.<BR><BR>I just wanted to take a few moments to clarify some of the
background<BR>that went into the announcement yesterday from a DM
Solutions<BR>perspective so that it can hopefully help the healthy discussion
that is<BR>happenning.<BR><BR>As most of you know, DM has played an important
role in the development<BR>and maintenance of MapServer over the past five
years. This is certainly<BR>a role that brings credit - but it also comes with a
responsibility to<BR>act in the best interest of the community.<BR><BR>It is for
this reason that the past few months, though very exciting,<BR>have also been
stressful as we take this responsibility very seriously.<BR>Autodesk first
approached us about their plans to open source their next<BR>generation of web
mapping technology -- and their desire to contribute<BR>to, and participate in
the open source community. Essentially they said,<BR>we want to be a part of
this world -- now how do we do it?<BR><BR>Ideally -- we would love to have seen
this initial discussion take place<BR>in the open, in the full broad community,
however I hope people can<BR>appreciate the major sensitivies and legal
ramifications a public<BR>company faces in terms of disclosure & discussion
of plans. To put it<BR>very simply - what took place yesterday could not have
happenned any<BR>other way than it did.<BR><BR><BR>Once it became clear that
Autodesk would be proceeding with the open<BR>source initiative - it became
critical to broaden the discussion to<BR>include the key contributors to
MapServer, which believe me is a grey<BR>line, and one of the most difficult
decisions that had to be made by<BR>this group. Who should be involved? We drew
the line as best we could<BR>around those who had given the greatest amount of
contribution to<BR>MapServer. I appreciate we may/may not have gotten the right
people -<BR>but believe me, I really wrestled with ensuring we were inclusive as
we<BR>could be at this sensitive stage.<BR><BR><BR>So why MapServer? Some see
this as a sell-out, but I look at this way -<BR>this group could have said no --
but the consequences of this would have<BR>been two completely separate
communities. Isn't one of the key goals of<BR>open source one of inclusion? I
felt, and I believe all the signatories<BR>felt, that we needed to be one family
of technologies. With open source,<BR>we are all part of the same team - working
together to build the best<BR>open source technologies we can to support our own
applications and<BR>projects.<BR><BR>I hope people can appreciate - that putting
up walls around MapServer to<BR>protect it, ironically would have done far more
damage to MapServer than<BR>good.<BR><BR>Also - I'd like to point out that most
of the confusion about the role<BR>of the Foundation, how projects will become
part of the foundation<BR>etc... is due to the fact that everyone who has been
part of the process<BR>to date has felt so strongly that we could only make the
minimal<BR>neccessary decisions before we really get to work on building
our<BR>Foundation with the full community starting yesterday, Nov.
28th.<BR><BR><BR>One other note -- about the naming of MapServer Enterprise --
it was in<BR>fact the community developers who coined this name for the
technology<BR>contributed by Autodesk vs. the original. This was due to
it's<BR>capabilities for data management, user access control, etc... that
would<BR>be more appropriate in an enterprise environment, vs. the lean,
fast,<BR>robust traditional mapServer that is the incredible web publishing
tool<BR>we've all come to love.<BR><BR><BR>I'd also like to re-iterate our
ongoing commitment to MapServer<BR>(Cheetah, or whatever it might become ...) as
it has a very important<BR>role to play now and into the foreseeable future. We
will be working<BR>with MapServer Enterprise as well - and look forward to
providing more<BR>choice and options to customers and open source technology
users.<BR><BR><BR>I think we all have worked very hard to see open source and
MapServer<BR>recognized, and accepted in the broader GeoSpatial and IT space. I,
and<BR>I believe the key contributors to MapServer have done our best to
make<BR>yesterday's announcement a part of making this
happen.<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Puneet Kishor wrote:<BR>> I must
underscore that I am not alluding to any conspiracy of any sort.<BR>> I am
only alluding to the facts that --<BR>><BR>> 1. Putting commercial entries
as sponsors of opensource, Autodesk or any<BR>> other, in the manner that it
seems like in the case of MapServer, takes<BR>> something away from the
grassroots community aspect of it all. DMS is<BR>> fairly innocuous here, and
I have little reason to doubt them. I have<BR>> known them for several years,
and some of them are my friends. Others<BR>> may rightly or wrongly feel
differently. I can certainly understand Ed's<BR>> point of view given his
position as a business owner of a similar scale.<BR>> But, does Autodesk
being in the fray preclude, antagonize, or even<BR>> attract other similar
sized commercial entities? How will ESRI or<BR>> Intergraph or Mapinfo or
even Oracle and/or Microsoft (all with<BR>> interests in GIS and mapping)
react?<BR>><BR>> 2. The nomenclature does make it seem like the real
MapServer has gotten<BR>> the short shrift. First there was 'classic' or
'lite.' Then came<BR>> 'professional.' Now Enterprise seems to be all the
rage. I could imagine<BR>> M2EE (MapServer 2 Enterprise Edition), but
MapServer Cheetah just<BR>> doesn't have the same feel other than providing a
convenient pencil<BR>> cover art for the next O'Reilly mapping-made-easy
edition. It does seem<BR>> like Autodesk is making out here on the goodwill
established by<BR>> MapServer. If not a fork of the source, it certainly will
be a fork of<BR>> the energies. I highly doubt the same folks will be able to
contribute<BR>> to both causes with equal vigor.<BR>><BR>> On the other
hand, yes, legal indemnification might be worthwhile<BR>> attraction. Does
Autodesk really provide that? To what extent? I haven't<BR>> done my due
diligence on all aspects of the deal.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
Lowell.Filak wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Just as a side-note I can't envision
UMN, DM Solutions, & Autodesk<BR>>> lumped together in the discussion.
While I understand the points made<BR>>> and responsibility must be
shouldered. I also know that DM Solutions &<BR>>> UMN has always put
Mapserver first.<BR>>> I think Steve alluded to the legal protection
aspect that comes with<BR>>> Autodesk. Wasn't it a couple of years ago
that a copyright holder<BR>>> threatened to sue the world of internet
mapping? We thought it was a<BR>>> joke but...<BR>>> Is it possible
that DMS & UMN felt the need (pressure) to do it NOW<BR>>> (aka. our
next generation app is ready and we need to beat Goliath to<BR>>> market
or else we pull out of negotiations)?<BR>>> Lowell<BR>>> Puneet
Kishor writes:<BR>>><BR>>>> Greetings all (and Ed). I re-joined
the list today on coming across<BR>>>> the Autodesk newsblurb. My
immediate feeling was, "If you can't beat<BR>>>> 'em..." The "you" was
Autodesk, and "'em" was you-know-who. That was<BR>>>> followed by a
little bit of giddyness, as it meant that my beloved<BR>>>> MapServer
was going high profile. I immediately darted off a<BR>>>>
congratulatory note to the pater of MapServer. But, the feeling
has<BR>>>> worn off; and Ed's very thoughtful (and wordy) note below
has<BR>>>> reinforced some of the diffidence that I
feel.<BR>>>> First, I do feel that MapServer seems to get the second
place here.<BR>>>> Everyone and their janitor wants "Enterprise." This
Cheetah bullshit<BR>>>> ain't gonna work. Makes MS-C look sound like a
hobby-kit.<BR>>>> Second, Autodesk gets a big, free PR thing out of it,
and it doesn't<BR>>>> even work on a Mac... I mean, give me a
break.<BR>>>> I am all for the foundation, have been from the day I
chimed in my<BR>>>> support at Ottawa... we all wanted to know where to
send the check of<BR>>>> support, and a foundation would have been such
a recipient.<BR>>>> This foundation is a bit of a squib, unless one's
shilling for Autodesk.<BR>>>> That said, I am not as pessimistic as Ed
might sound... yes, there<BR>>>> never will be another "founder" other
than those involved, and yes,<BR>>>> personally, I would rather think
of UMN as a founder instead of any<BR>>>> other commercial entity. But,
the key is to find a way out/around<BR>>>> this, and get the MapServer
brand as de-commercialized as possible.<BR>>>> And, for heaven's sake,
lets get the Enterprise moniker.<BR>>>> Ed McNierney
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>>> Folks -<BR>>>>> This
morning I sent a few comments about the MapServer Foundation<BR>>>>>
off-list to Steve Lime, and (at my request) he forwarded them on
to<BR>>>>> some<BR>>>>> of the other folks
involved. After a comments by a few folks there<BR>>>>>
were<BR>>>>> requests that I post my messages to the broader
community. This<BR>>>>> post is<BR>>>>> an attempt
to do that in a consolidated way. I apologize for
being<BR>>>>> wordy, but there's a lot to say.<BR>>>>>
I've been a member of the MapServer "community" for several years
now.<BR>>>>> The Foundation project is the first time I can ever
recall there<BR>>>>> being a<BR>>>>> conscious, ongoing,
and deliberate attempt to exclude most of the<BR>>>>> community from
a discussion of significance about MapServer. A small<BR>>>>>
number of people - some of whom are dedicated developers
who've<BR>>>>> contributed far more than I ever have - decided to
enter into<BR>>>>> discussions that included two commercial firms
(DM Solutions and<BR>>>>> Autodesk). No one else got to
participate, and the work was<BR>>>>> deliberately kept
secret. Doesn't sound like much of an "open" project<BR>>>>>
to me.<BR>>>>> A MapServer Foundation is a very, very good
idea. This MapServer<BR>>>>> Foundation has gotten off to a
very, very bad start. I find myself in<BR>>>>> the position of
being quite reluctant to support this instance of a<BR>>>>> concept
I eagerly wish to support.<BR>>>>> I think I should start by
explaining why I think a MapServer Foundation<BR>>>>> is a very good
idea (as opposed to what others think, even though we<BR>>>>>
generally seem to agree). MapServer has been well-served by
the<BR>>>>> technical and development community that supports
it. It has mainly<BR>>>>> lacked many of the things that make
a "program" a "product". It needs<BR>>>>> better
documentation, easier setup and sample sites, product
summaries<BR>>>>> and literature, feature/benefit brochures and
comparisons, benchmarking<BR>>>>> tests, presentations, a
coordinated trade show/conference plan, better<BR>>>>> marketing,
directories of consultants, reference sites, etc. I
don't<BR>>>>> mean to denigrate any of the efforts made along any of
these lines, but<BR>>>>> I think we all know there are things you
can currently get from<BR>>>>> commercial vendors that aren't
available with MapServer. A Foundation<BR>>>>> would be a
great way to provide these things. It wouldn't need to
get<BR>>>>> in the way of the development work, and could complement
it by filling<BR>>>>> in the blanks.<BR>>>>> All of that
takes money. A MapServer Foundation needs funding to
do<BR>>>>> these things. Fortunately, there are several
subsets of the MapServer<BR>>>>> community that are in a position to
contribute funding. There are<BR>>>>> commercial users of
MapServer (folks like me, GlobeXplorer, etc.),<BR>>>>> commercial
developers/consultancies like DM Solutions and others, and<BR>>>>>
the government and educational users who tend to not have much money
to<BR>>>>> spend but can usually contribute
something.<BR>>>>> To date, organizations interested in financial
support for MapServer<BR>>>>> have been limited to funding specific
software development tasks. The<BR>>>>> pace of that
development has been such that every time I raise an idea<BR>>>>>
about a project TopoZone could fund, it seems that someone else
has<BR>>>>> gotten there first. I could have chipped in money
for "future<BR>>>>> development", but there was no place to put it -
it didn't make<BR>>>>> sense to<BR>>>>> just send Frank
or Daniel or Steve a check and tell them to try to<BR>>>>>
spend<BR>>>>> it somehow. And I would rather fund the "other
stuff" than fund<BR>>>>> feature<BR>>>>> development -
there's more of a need for it. A Foundation could fix<BR>>>>>
that, by providing a place that takes in revenue from members
and<BR>>>>> sponsors, and uses that revenue to fund projects -
probably<BR>>>>> non-development projects as I mentioned above,
since those won't get<BR>>>>> funded otherwise. The OGC
membership model is a relevant and simple<BR>>>>> example of this
sort of thing.<BR>>>>> So what does the Foundation need to do
that? It needs to be open and<BR>>>>> inclusive, eligible to
all to participate as peers or as peers within<BR>>>>> certain
classes of membership. It needs to be independent of
any<BR>>>>> particular sponsor, and it also needs to APPEAR to be
independent. It<BR>>>>> needs to have a clear mission and it
needs to simplify and clarify<BR>>>>> things for its members and for
its constituent base. It needs to be<BR>>>>> seen as the
unswerving voice dedicated to the support of MapServer and<BR>>>>>
nothing else.<BR>>>>> Today's announcement missed those goals by a
wide mark. Some of those<BR>>>>> errors can be corrected, but
some we'll have to live with forever. And<BR>>>>> most of them
could have been avoided by the kind of open, inclusive<BR>>>>>
discussion we've always had in the MapServer community - until
now.<BR>>>>> Supporting the MapServer Foundation is a great PR and
marketing<BR>>>>> opportunity. It appears that Autodesk and DM
Solutions were extremely<BR>>>>> aware of that, and made sure that
they didn't have to share that<BR>>>>> opportunity with anyone
else. Being a "founder" is very important, and<BR>>>>> you've
already seen Autodesk and DM Solutions take advantage of
that<BR>>>>> through their own press releases today. No other
company will *ever*<BR>>>>> get that chance - the press doesn't
really care about the next few<BR>>>>> companies to sign on.
When I created TopoZone in 1999, it was<BR>>>>> incredibly important
to be the first topographic map site on the Web,<BR>>>>> because the
PR value was so great. I suspect very few folks
remember<BR>>>>> who launched the second one....<BR>>>>>
Companies will be attracted to sponsor the Foundation because
of<BR>>>>> that PR<BR>>>>> value. Unfortunately,
that value's gone and nothing will get it back.<BR>>>>> I'm
certainly a potential financial supporter of the Foundation,
but<BR>>>>> I'm<BR>>>>> also running a business. I
can't simply give money away, but I can<BR>>>>> spend it on things
that give me PR and marketing value. I could<BR>>>>> spend
a<BR>>>>> pretty substantial (for me) sum as an annual commitment to
the<BR>>>>> Foundation. I am now a *lot* less inclined to
provide that support to<BR>>>>> this Foundation, because the value
(in PR and marketing terms) is a<BR>>>>> whole lot less than it
would have been if I could have been invited to<BR>>>>> the
party. I'm certainly welcome to sign on and take a seat right
up<BR>>>>> near the front - as long as it isn't in the front
row.<BR>>>>> I don't say that because I'm personally miffed at being
excluded - I'm<BR>>>>> just TopoZone. I say that because we'll
never know how many firms and<BR>>>>> how much financial support
could have been raised if someone had tried<BR>>>>> to solicit input
and support in an open, inclusive way. There are lots<BR>>>>>
of us out here. I've been told that it's "incredibly important"
that<BR>>>>> the Foundation be seen as vendor-neutral and that it
not be at the<BR>>>>> mercy<BR>>>>> of a single funder's
contributions. Sounds good, but don't tell me<BR>>>>>
that<BR>>>>> now - those are both reasons to solicit a larger number
of contributing<BR>>>>> founding members rather than selling the
whole package to Autodesk.<BR>>>>> It's not easy to undo that; the
Foundation is clearly already seen<BR>>>>> as an<BR>>>>>
Autodesk initiative by the press (in part because Autodesk has tried
to<BR>>>>> make that point clear) and not many firms are interested
in throwing<BR>>>>> money at Autodesk - they've got more of it than
I do.<BR>>>>> My second huge concern is the branding/product lineup
for the<BR>>>>> Foundation. I woke up this morning to two
MapServers where we had one<BR>>>>> before. One of them has
the impressive-sounding name "MapServer<BR>>>>> Enterprise" while
the other is currently named after a large pussycat<BR>>>>> but may
or may not be open to the possibility of being named after a<BR>>>>>
different mammal. There's no doubt in the potential customer's
mind<BR>>>>> which one is the grown-up, field-tested,
production-ready, scalable,<BR>>>>> capable system.
Unfortunately, they're thinking of the wrong one.<BR>>>>> Branding
really matters. It's very important. Tyler Mitchell says
so,<BR>>>>> too, on the new MapServer site. Autodesk has
zillions of people who<BR>>>>> know that very, very well. They
just bought a great brand and<BR>>>>> MapServer<BR>>>>>
suddenly managed to take a back seat to itself, something I would
have<BR>>>>> thought anatomically impossible. They've managed
to appropriate a<BR>>>>> well-respected brand name and take center
stage with it. Autodesk's<BR>>>>> press release takes
advantage of that ambiguity by introducing Steve<BR>>>>> Lime as the
"creator of MapServer" without saying which one they're<BR>>>>>
talking about! Speaking of press releases, in an effort like
this<BR>>>>> it is<BR>>>>> common for all founding
members to see and sign off on each other's<BR>>>>> press releases
in advance, something which appears (from some developer<BR>>>>>
comments) to not have happened here. This is PR 101 stuff - if
you<BR>>>>> don't try to keep what you're doing a secret, you might
get helpful<BR>>>>> advice.<BR>>>>> The same is true, by
the way, about the questions raised on Autodesk's<BR>>>>> patent
policy. This should NOT be an open question *after*
the<BR>>>>> announcement - Autodesk's patent portfolio and their
defense of it are<BR>>>>> well-known. It should have been one
of the first questions raised and<BR>>>>> answered. Once the
Foundation's plans were made public it only took a<BR>>>>> few hours
to bring it to everyone's attention - remember the<BR>>>>> benefits
of<BR>>>>> open development?<BR>>>>> The "MapServer
Enterprise" product just got inserted into the MapServer<BR>>>>>
family by decree. Customers know very well that when they see
two<BR>>>>> similar products side-by-side, usually due to a merger
or acquisition,<BR>>>>> they sit back and wait to see which one gets
killed off. This usually<BR>>>>> has the effect of
discouraging adoption of BOTH products, because<BR>>>>> customers
don't know which one to implement and don't want to make the<BR>>>>>
wrong choice. Believe me, I've been a CTO standing up in front
of<BR>>>>> customers in that situation more than once - they don't
believe you can<BR>>>>> serve two masters, and they're
right.<BR>>>>> Does the Apache Foundation offer two Web
servers? Apache Enterprise<BR>>>>> and<BR>>>>>
Apache Other?<BR>>>>> Can't kill off MapServer, you say?
Perhaps not in a technical sense,<BR>>>>> but if there's a MapServer
Foundation and a MapServer Enterprise, who's<BR>>>>> going to notice
if that other thingy doesn't get the same amount of<BR>>>>>
attention? Perhaps the platypus is indeed a good choice, as it
may<BR>>>>> belong with the nearly-extinct monotremes. You
can't kill the<BR>>>>> MapServer<BR>>>>> code, but you
can certainly kill the brand. Please don't confuse the<BR>>>>>
two.<BR>>>>> Why was the Foundation "announced" when it apparently
doesn't actually<BR>>>>> exist? It seems like today's
announcement was designed primarily to<BR>>>>> maximize the PR value
to DM Solutions and Autodesk - after all, the<BR>>>>> press got
briefed about it before the rest of us did. As far as I
can<BR>>>>> tell, there isn't any foundation, but when we get one
it's going to be<BR>>>>> great and open to all, because DM Solutions
and UMN and Autodesk have<BR>>>>> all assured each other that it
will be. Each time I hear that "now's<BR>>>>> the time to
participate", I cringe because I'm being told that by the<BR>>>>>
exclusive group who deliberately prevented all of us from
participating<BR>>>>> until they decided they had gotten what they
needed out of it and it's<BR>>>>> now OK to let the rest of us
inside. The time to participate was last<BR>>>>> week, or last
month, before anything got announced and before we were<BR>>>>> all
handed the Foundation. If the Foundation is really a
genuinely<BR>>>>> open<BR>>>>> opportunity for us, then
tell us that the inclusion of Autodesk's<BR>>>>> product isn't
non-negotiable. Do the rest of us get to insert<BR>>>>>
MapServer-branded products whenever we want to?<BR>>>>> All of these
problems were preventable. All it would have taken was
an<BR>>>>> open discussion of the proposal. You get a lot of
people spouting off,<BR>>>>> and then you find out who's really
interested. You find out how many<BR>>>>> commercial sponsors
you can get and at what level of support. You<BR>>>>> create
what appears to the public as a truly open consortium that's<BR>>>>>
worth watching, instead of one that triggers discussions
about<BR>>>>> Autodesk.<BR>>>>> You demonstrate right
from the start that you have a broad base of<BR>>>>> commercial
support, with commercial firms from the USA, Canada, Europe,<BR>>>>>
South America, Australia, etc. What was the perceived benefit
of<BR>>>>> keeping the process secret and exclusive? Did
someone threaten to pick<BR>>>>> up their marbles and go home?
You can often be surprised at how many<BR>>>>> folks are willing to
contribute their own marbles when something like<BR>>>>> that
happens - but you never know until you ask.<BR>>>>> The MapServer
community really needs a Foundation to support it and to<BR>>>>>
keep the product healthy and growing. There are many examples of
the<BR>>>>> creation of such consortia to draw from, both inside of
and outside of<BR>>>>> the Open Source community. It doesn't
appear those examples were<BR>>>>> considered. We really need
a MapServer Foundation - I'm not at all<BR>>>>>
sure<BR>>>>> that we need this
one.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>