[Board] USGIF Conference and diatribe on where we are heading

[Tim Schaub]

I appreciate your thoughts on this.  It's clear to me that we've got
as many different visions for the foundation as we do members.

For example, this statement "We already do a great job on supporting
development" is something I disagree with completely.

Also, I am not that enthusiastic about making the foundation operate
like a big business (emphasis on big is mine).

I do agree wholeheartedly with the idea of more regular conferences.
I'd like to see the revenue from these conferences go to support
development of the projects.  It is, after all, the projects that draw
people to the conferences (interested to hear if others see this
differently).

I see a clear value proposition for sponsors of the conference(s).  I
would be interested to hear others describe what the value proposition
is for sponsors of the foundation (without the conferences).  For me,
the value proposition doesn't change with or without an executive
director.  I do believe that without a commitment to a regular/stable
conference, we reduce the likelihood of a growing or at least
sustainable foundation.

If we want to view the foundation as a business, I'd say our assets
are the projects and our marketplace is the conference.  What is the
model from your perspective?

Tim

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Lucas <mlucas17 at mac.com> wrote:
> Just got back from the 2011 Geoint Conference in San Antonio Texas.
> http://geoint2011.com/
>
> The USGIF is the conference for geospatial intelligence in the US.  This
> year there were over 5000 attendees (138 from overseas- mostly foreign
> military).
> There over 250  booths and paying sponsors (> 100,000 sq ft of exhibit
> space) .  They have built this organization up to support a full time staff,
> multiple events throughout the year, media publications etc.
> http://www.gotgeoint.com/
> For the first time, we were able to get on the agenda with an OSS panel.
> http://geointv.com/archive/geoint-2011-breakout-demonstration-of-military-relevant-open-source-geospatial-software/
> Open source software is suddenly interesting because of dramatic budget cuts
> that are planned for most of the agencies.
> Most of the presentations are online at: http://geointv.com/
> NSA and NGA both made announcements related to their focus on open source
> software.
> As the US government shows increasing interest in open source software
> solutions the existing contractors will try to align themselves with those
> capabilities.
> Unfortunately, this comes at a time when the OSGeo has stepped back from a
> core staff and is uncertain about holding annual NA conferences.  Indeed,
> there almost seems to be a reluctance to focus on raising revenue for the
> organization - instead focusing on how to allocate what we have to code
> sprints, travel, etc.
> We want to support the building of open source geospatial software.  I would
> contend that we can do more if we (the board) focus on running the
> organization more like a business.
> We already do a great job on supporting development.  If we add more
> attention to business models I believe that we have a window of opportunity
> to attract sponsorship from some of the many players that already support
> USGIF.  If the US government continues to move towards OSS, many contractors
> will want to brand themselves with an OSS approach, resources, development
> and operational support.
> If we do not focus on this we will simply lose the opportunity to USGIF,
> MIL-OSS, OSFA, OSSI or other organizations that will aggressively step
> forward.
> In either case OSGeo projects will become a valuable resource.  As I
> mentioned before, I was able to convince RadiantBlue to make a $30k
> investment as a platinum foss4g sponsor based on the trends we see
> developing.  I'd like to continue and expand that support, but can only do
> that if there is a business case to be made.
> I feel that we have fallen backwards.  We failed to raise sponsorship and
> revenue in order to sustain and grow the organization.  That led to decision
> to cut expenses with the removal of the ED.  I get the feeling that some on
> the board are comfortable with the status quo.  It is probably clear that
> I'm in a different camp - we need to raise revenue, get back to where we can
> support core staff, and grow the organization on a couple of fronts.  A
> litmus test for me will be a decision on the annual NA conference.
> I feel that this is a discussion we should quickly settle one way or the
> other and I'd appreciate any feedback in advance of the next board meeting.
>  Either way I'll continue to be a strong supporter and user of OSGeo
> projects - its just that we all need to decide where we are going to focus
> and put our energies.
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>



-- 
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.