[Board] Resurrecting the Eclipse discussion

Wed Jun 20 06:42:04 PDT 2012

Thank you for your feedback and ideas. Please see in-line below.

On 06/20/2012 05:07 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. The important parts here will be figuring out how bank rolling & 
profit sharing work. Also, who's doing what for the labour intensive 
functions like IT, Marketing, Sponsorship, Accounting, Logistics, etc. 
The model can allow for others that might be interested to get involved 
as well.

Also related, the Eclipse community runs many (e.g. 50+) regional events 
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse_DemoCamps_Juno_2012> globally every 6 
months. IMHO, it'd be really cool to have OSGeo local chapters join 
forces where it makes sense and vice versa. This won't always make 
sense, but a) the potential to do so at will is a good thing b) It's 
hard to see any potential for harm.

>
> 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.

This question is well timed. At yesterday's Eclipse Foundation board 
meeting, resolutions approving use of MIT and BSD licenses for projects 
hosted in this forge/group were passed.

Resolutions giving explicit permission to re-distribute a few notable 
LGPL components (Geotools, GEOS, JTS) also passed.

I've updated the FAQ accordingly to note this:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ

In general, the group is interested in encouraging location technology 
projects to choose licenses & processes that enable them to confidently 
invest and build products and services based on the software involved.

>
> 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.
Precisely. The organizations involved in forming the group said pretty 
much the same thing in terms of their hopes for what we can accomplish. 
They know/trust Eclipse governance and processes. In many of these 
companies, the friction for re-using or contributing to software from 
Eclipse is less than elsewhere. This is a good thing for adoption and 
encouraging strategic investment. The FAQ touches on this... marketing 
bucks are nice, investment because the software is core to the business 
is better. If we accomplish this, it will be "rocket fuel" to accelerate 
adoption and investment in open source location technologies.

>
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20120620/a45bed0f/attachment.htm>