[Board] Resurrecting the Eclipse discussion

Wed Jun 20 02:07:56 PDT 2012

Andrew, thank you for this email which helps clarify (at least for me) 
what a joint Eclipse/OSGeo relationship might look like. In particular, 
I found this section on your website very insightful:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_difference_between_Eclipse_and_OSGeo_for_example.3F

I've actually learned a few things about OSGeo from this page.

Re Conferences: I think that the path forward toward a joint 
OSGeo/Eclipse FOSS4G conference formula will be reasonably easy to 
navigate. I'll leave that topic for the moment.

Re: Foundations providing an umbrella for projects:
* I think there is potentially a lot of value to be gained by bringing 
in the best of both OSGeo and Eclipse, although there is also the 
potential for fragmentation between two competing foundations which 
would be less desirable. I may be an optimist, but as we all come from 
Open Source backgrounds, I think we have the collective culture and 
track record to be confident that we can navigate toward a positive 
synergy between the two foundations.

Re: "The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is the default OSI approved 
license used at Eclipse":
Is this negotiable? I expect this will be difficult hurdle to cross for 
many projects, mainly due to the inherited dependencies of underlying 
libraries, and the number of contributors which will need to be 
contacted in order to facilitate such a change.

Re: Processes, Policies and Periodic releases:
I see this as as an area which OSGeo can gain from Eclipse. Processes 
which enable consistent quality control, along with predictable release 
cycles are important factors in software being considered by large risk 
adverse agencies and projects, as well as many other sections of the 
purchasing community as well.
OSGeo does have an incubation process which is a once off process 
projects go through. We also have the OSGeo-Live DVD periodic release 
cycle. I think it would be valuable to see how we can align these 
existing processes with what Eclipse can offer in this regard.
And I think this formula from Eclipse is well worth considering as 
Eclipse has a track record to show that by following their formula, we 
should be able to take OSGeo projects to a higher level of uptake, and 
financial gain for the community.

On 20/06/2012 1:37 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> These are some relevant thoughts more than a direct reply to Jody's 
> post. Hopefully they help the discussion along.
>
> Working together, we see good potential for triggering growth, 
> innovation, and increased mind-share for open source location 
> technology. Nurturing existing technology is important. We also want 
> to invest in new & innovative areas not currently addressed. There are 
> things we can do to help enable organizations to invest. This is what 
> this is about.
>
> Projects:
>
> Simply put, some projects (hosted @ OSGeo or otherwise) will look at 
> the relative increase in process & formality or something else and 
> decide it just isn't for them.
>
> Other projects will be attracted to the opportunity to gain additional 
> mind-share and energy via. the group @ Eclipse. Eclipse is ubiquitous 
> and well trusted in places likely to be desirable to projects and 
> community. This includes organizations, and also technology areas like 
> enterprise IT, Aerospace, Automotive, Financial, etc.
>
> Some projects may decide to be involved in both foundations if they 
> see a way to so with little downside. Some projects may decide for 
> neither. Some may feel one way today, and re-evaluate in the future.
>
>
> Events:
>
> Collaborating on events seems like a good idea.
>
> Things work similarly for events between OSGeo & Eclipse. It's 
> probably fair to say there's less risk and maybe a bit more 
> consistency @ Eclipse given the dedicated full time staff handling the 
> logistics and fund raising. Also, we tend to host the main annual 
> conferences in the same location for a few years at a time which also 
> helps with risk.
>
> Here's how a typical EclipseCon/ EclipseCon Europe is run:
> The program committee is made up of community members/committers and 
> invited industry experts.
> The logistics such as A/V, Catering, Security, etc. are handled by a 
> full-time event planning team.
> The business team handle sponsorship, accounting, etc.
>
> In general, for what it's worth, working together doesn't need to be 
> divisive. Thank you to the team directly involved, the people 
> discussing the topic here, and especially Michael for going to great 
> lengths trying to ensure it isn't.
>
> Directly addressing a few things:
>
> Q: Will Eclipse become a platinum (or any other level) sponsor of OSGeo.
> A: I can't really say. The Steering Committee of the group will 
> prioritize their budget based on their goals & how such a proposal 
> would contribute towards achieving them.
>
> Q: Will Eclipse work *through* OSGeo.
> A: We would like to find a way to work *together* on initiatives of 
> mutual interest.
>
> In case you're interested, more FAQ information is posted here:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ
>
> Andrew
>
> On 06/19/2012 03:55 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> I think that OSGeo should say:
>>>
>>> * OSGeo wants to continue to be the recognised foundation that 
>>> Geospatial Open Source projects turn to for support. In particular, 
>>> we don't want to see the marketplace split by choosing between one 
>>> foundation and another. Such a slit is likely to create a lot of bad 
>>> will amongst the greater community, and lead to reduced productivity 
>>> which will not be good for anyone.
>> I don't think we have much danger of that - a choice is not required. 
>> Projects already work with multiple groups (examples github for 
>> hosting; OSGeo for community development; source forge for file 
>> distribution; free software foundation for legal advice and so on ...).
>>> * As such we wish to see the Eclipse Foundation worth through the 
>>> OSGeo Foundation.
>>>
>>> If we can get the Eclipse Foundation to agree to the above, then I 
>>> think we can continue moving forward with a positive discussion.
>> Counter proposal here. We have already have a precedent of working 
>> with the OGC on a few activities (an interoperability day, a white 
>> paper and so on, and we maintain a osge-standards email list to 
>> facilitate discussion).
>>
>> Perhaps we can treat this location working group in a similar 
>> fashion, consider it as an "OSGeo industry outreach" activity and ask 
>> that OSGeo maintain a representative in the group.
>>
>> Aside: With respect to OGC collaboration, what is the process the OGC 
>> uses to define their open source reference implementations? Along 
>> with cite tests this seems like like an obvious candidate for direct 
>> collaboration.
>>
>> Jody
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> -- 
> *Andrew Ross*
> Director, Ecosystems
> Eclipse Foundation <http://eclipse.org>
> Twitter: @42aross <http://twitter.com/42aross>
> Mobile: 1-613-614-5772
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20120620/a911ab40/attachment.htm>