[Board] OSM MoU

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/04/2010 05:27 PM, Tim Schaub wrote:
>
> I've initiated a conversation with Mikel Maron (OSM Foundation Board)
> about our interest in putting together a Memorandum of Understanding
> between OSGeo and OSM. Mikel expressed interest and said he would bring
> it up with the OSM Foundation Board.

Tim,
thanks for picking this up. I will take the opportunity to explore
my take on the meaning of MoUs [1] for OSGeo in some more detail. Please
bear with me. Once we come to a common understanding we should update
the MoU page in the Wiki and ask the broader communtiy for further input
(keeping it here for now because so far these are only my 2Ct).

During my visit to the OSGeo Portugal Local Chapter I had the chance to
chat with Jorge Gustavo Rocha (Departamento de Informática, Universidade
do Minho), Lluís Vicens (SIGTE, Girona) and two weeks ago with Andreas
Wehrenpfenning (Univesity of applied sciences, Neubrandenburg). They are
all interested in exploring MoUs with OSGeo so this is starting to take
off.

> We agreed that it would be good to put some more detail to the idea
> before going forward. I stated that my understanding is that a MoU would
> represent the intent to have OSGeo software integrate well and
> facilitate in the collection of OSM data.

At the last FOSS4G there was a comment about MoUs along the lines of
"...if you don't understand each other then you need to sign an MoU".
Which is probably true to some degree. To me an MoU is useful to
document strategic alliances that might not be obvious to all. It is
also a powerful marketing tool.

If we pick the relationship between OSGeo and OSM apart then we can see
that OSGeo software already integrates well with OSM, that both sides
are aware of each other and collaboration works well. Simply because
people are interested and have fun using one with the other and vice
versa. OSGeo has a clear Mission statement to support free and open
access to data, both crowd sourced and from authoritative sources. Not
much need to memorize a common understanding.

On the organizational side there have been some misconceptions on both
sides - nothing serious but notable. In one mail it looked as if OSM had
to take care to not get perceived as being a junior partner to OSGeo as
in potentialy "being one of OSGeo's many projects" instead of "being
something of it's own". From my point of view there is no question that
OpenStreetMap is something very much of its own.

The MoU with OGC has come from a similar starting point. OSGeo could
simply have become a regular member of OGC but at that time we felt the
need to be pperceived as an independent grown-up organizaiton of our
oen. An MoU made more sense. It gives a feeling of communicating at eye
level. This is what I think would be a core reason to have an MoU with
OSM. OSGeo is not trying to take over anything and less so to impose
using OSGeo software on OSM. We should take care to make this a
transparent agreed message.

> It would be good to answer a few questions before going forward.
>
> Is the sentence below an accurate/complete summary of the purpose of the
> MoU from the OSGeo perspective?
>
> OSGeo is interested in ensuring that OSGeo software integrates well and
> facilitates in the collection of OSM data.
>
> What would be the benefits for OSM of pursuing such a MoU (as opposed to
> continuing with the status quo)?

- From what I said above: I don't think making the impression that OSM
"should" somehow prefer OSGeo software over other software is a good
starting point. Instead, it will be interesting to OSM to have OSGeo as
a partner in certain situations. An example from Germany: There is an
active OSM community in Germany but it did not have an institutional
prepresentation. The OSGeo Local Chapter FOSSGIS e.V. [3] is a legal
body in Germany and it was informally agreed on several mailing lists
and birds of a feather meetings that it can take on the role of a legal
body for OSM related questions - in Germany. The German FOSSGIS
conference also has a regular OSM block and OSM participates in the
OSGeo booths at Intergeo tradefair, AGIT conference, LinuxTag [4] and so
on ever since 2006. In fact OSM has even been doing a much better job
than OSGeo in presenting themselves at events organized under the
auspices of the OSGeo LC FOSSGIS. It is just great to have them there.

> Are there any concrete examples of differences between how we (OSGeo &
> OSM) operate now and how we would operate after signing a memorandum?

One example is the OGC which kindly allows six individual membership
slots to OSGeo free of cost to improve communication with the broader
Open Source community.

The MoU with the Centre for Geospatial Science (CGS), University of
Nottingham pinpoints both.

Before:
"... close collaboration between the two organisations which has already
underpinned two very successful Conferences on open source research in
the geospatial domain. "

...and after:
"CGS is funding two research internships to help progress joint research
activities and welcomes both offers of funding for further internee
sponsorships and approaches from potential visiting scientists who may
wish to spend a period of time based at the Centre in Nottingham to work
on open source geospatial research."

> Thanks for any help with these questions. It will help to have more
> input to flesh out the proposal for the OSM Board.
>
> Tim

Thanks for your time,
Arnulf.

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Category:MoU
[2] http://www.fossgis.de/
[3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LinuxTag_2006#Software_Developers_and_Hackers

PS:
Yikes, I sound like a politian... /me goes bakc to do some real work in
 psql

- --
Arnulf Christl
President OSGeo
http://www.osgeo.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkzT5VoACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3S5gCfdFGMU2gWoQQZOuQvSNg0XB8L
nKsAn2QBk6b0WS9T+bS0D+LGg2HIT5Q5
=PiHV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----