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

Wed Oct 26 09:24:45 PDT 2011

I'm fairly maxed out on travel, but I'm not opposed to it if the board
collectively sees a f2f board meeting as essential.

I'm also not opposed to a longer strategic meeting on Skype (or Google+ etc.).

Tim

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com> wrote:
> Peter, Arnulf, Mark (I think?), and I have agreed in principle for travelling for this.
>
> Frank, Daniel, Jeff, Jo, Tim?
>
> -mpg
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Seven (aka Arnulf)
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:15 PM
>> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
>> Subject: Re: [Board] USGIF Conference and diatribe on where we are heading
>>
>> On 10/26/2011 01:44 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>> > All:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm glad Mark sent this, as I've been pretty discouraged since our IRC
>> > meeting a couple weeks ago.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I thought the f2f board meeting after foss4g was very effective and got
>> > us off to a good start, and leaving Denver I had high hopes we could
>> > address OSGeo's strategic issues.  However, the subsequent meeting -
>> > held via IRC - has led me to start to understand why OSGeo has stalled
>> > out on the strategic side over the past couple years:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > IRC and email are simply the wrong way for the board to have any sort of
>> > meaningful discussion
>> >
>> > about "big picture" things of the scope Mark is bringing up.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Some weeks ago we "stepped back from a core staff" for two reasons:  our
>> > current financial posture is unhealthy and our current staff was not
>> > seen as the best choice as to how to improve that situation.  The more I
>> > look at OSGeo right now, the more I am confident we did the right
>> > thing.  And I too want to see OSGeo rebuild itself with a clearer set of
>> > goals and objectives.  But I've yet to see any consensus on what those
>> > goals might be, or how we might develop a business plan to get there.
>> >
>> > As the Board, it is our responsibility to set those goals and develop
>> > that plan, and we already agreed that, where justified, OSGeo should pay
>> > for additional in-person meetings.  Therefore, I propose we meet in
>> > person as soon as is practical to continue the work started in Denver,
>> > to decide in what direction we want to grow and make concrete plans for
>> > how to get there.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As secretary, I would be happy to organize a meeting space here in
>> > Seattle or anywhere else that might be convenient.  All we need is a
>> > hotel conference room near a major airport hub for a couple days.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -mpg
>>
>> Michael,
>> I support this and am prepared to invest the time to make this possible.
>> We should also make reimbursement of travel and accomodation a part of
>> the OSGeo budget allowing all board members to participate regardless
>> from where they come.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arnulf
>>
>> > *From:*board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>> > [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark Lucas
>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:54 AM
>> > *To:* OSGeo-Board List
>> > *Subject:* [Board] USGIF Conference and diatribe on where we are heading
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
>> http://arnulf.us
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.